Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: majormark on September 01, 2010, 04:53:13 am
-
I've been thinking about this lately and I'd like to know how would you envision a perfect society. One that would best integrate raw diets.
What do you think about a libertarian society?
It seems that we need to come up with a way of organization or start changing something for the better, because sooner or later all these food regulations and standards based on bacteria phobia may limit our choices more than we would like to admit. I mean most people would gladly had over control over their foods just because they trust government food 'experts' or they just care more about a sweet taste.
Since I discovered the libertarian concepts, I immediately thought how well a raw diet could integrate in such a society and how much the small farmers would be encouraged and not have to alter their produce just to comply with ridiculous government regulations.
Here is some food for thought:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLCEXtpTNYU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY
-
Perfect Society for me = people herding animals and/or hunting and gathering. I guess that would be no society. A society of no society would be ideal for me.
-
Let's solve the INEQUITY of this money system.
How did STAR TREK solve their money system?
Such that they have no money.
Something like that.
So people can freely multiply, freely express their real reproductive sexuality.
So people can reach for the stars and build those colonizing space ships and colonize other worlds.
-
I think a Perfect Society is a paradox.
-
a society where people are happy and social and eat raw animal foods, :)
-
A society in which I am left to do as I please, make any contracts with others that suit my interests, and where I have no restraints on my personal freedom save that which would involuntarily restrict that of others directly.
-
A society in which I am left to do as I please, make any contracts with others that suit my interests, and where I have no restraints on my personal freedom save that which would involuntarily restrict that of others directly.
Don't we have something like this now?
-
I think a Perfect Society is a paradox.
Agreed. Although I feel bad diet relates to certain societal problems.
-
Don't we have something like this now?
Not even remotely.
-
Those deluded enough to believe in The Perfect Society should read Rudyard Kipling's famous poem "The Gods of the Copybook Headings" which warns how endless numbers of civilisations throughout human history have gone bust as a result of yearning for social progress of some sort:-
http://www.eliteskills.com/c/1460
-
The founders of the united states we very libertarian and understood that they were considered livestock by their colonial overloads, they were able to earn a marginal freedom(like the cows that banged their heads against the wall were eventually allowed some more free space) People of colonial America earned the limited freedoms provided in the constitution only by the colonials taking over the farm.
Its an unholy compromise that the libertarians were fighting for, which ultimate goal is not absolute liberty, it was only to obtain the maximum level of freedom that a controlled society will tolerate. They believe in the free ranged model humanity(even colonial slaves were given certain liberties) ,and I tend to side with this Ideal. There is a utility that is served by the subservience of the populations to higher organizational power, but we must never allow the Money Masters to forgit that human beings aren't productive in captivity and that we must be given some consesions or else we can and will take over the Animal Farm. This is the compromise that has been constantly being haggeld over since the first manors were established, and people flocked to them like moths to the flame, willing to serve their babalonyal masters in exchange for security and a humble home on the plantation. We the people must not accept the first offer and understand our worth and not allow ourselves and our children to be sold short. Live and expound the attitude that we diseve more than just chicken scratch.
As the farms grow into these huge conglomerations like the American Union and European Union, I agree that the food sources will be more and more corrupt, perhaps even deliberately altered in order to cull and weaken us( just investigate Gm soy and its effects). The loads of old England in the days of robin hood often put bans on hunting for the serfs, while they feasted on game meat(they often stood a foot taller than their malnourished slaves.Even they understood that If young boys were allowed enough game meat into their diet they would grow up so strong ,intelligent and physically powerful to be controlled). The overloads of today's world understand this as well and this is why most public school systems in the United States feed the kids meals that consist of 30% GM Soy(which is proven to make the males more androgynous). In the UK they put Sodium fluoride in the school milk (This poisons the mind). The water fluoridation programs were developed in order to knock off IQ points of the general population. I could go on forever about how we are the Intelligent independent spirit has been culled out of us just as the wild animals were culled off from the breading stock during the domestication of farm animals. The human farmers cant allow for People like Thomas Jefferson to exist, so in order to maintain the stability of the farm they must ensure that people wont be given the type of classical education, and organic diet that produced the Sons of Liberty in colonial America.
Perhaps raw meat added to the mix of classical education would create a class of man like the Huns who were totaly incapable of being domesticated, so a raw civilization may never be possible without a centralized power conditioning the young to accept authority, and behave themselves
There was a book, Island, written by Aldous Huxley and on this Island in the south pacific a group of pioneering westerners merged with the Free living Islanders and created an Ideal society that used limited technology to enhance the lives of people, and without an evil hierarchy the people are liberated and spend their lives building a paradise were the children are educated to enjoy life and encouraged to maintain an open heart and free spirit. Of course they are surrounded by a world of evil and their Island is threatend by a power hungry colonel who wants to take controll over the entire region and steal the Islands oil supply(this was written in the 1960s) I suggest if you are looking for Ideals on building the perfect society you give this book a read, It really helped my Faith in humanity. The island people ate a lot of fish and I am sure they wouldn't mind people eatting raw meat.
The book opens with a quote by Aristotle,"when framing the Ideal we may assume as we wish but should avoid impossibilities"
-
sabertooth,
I think Stefan has a video about what you talk about the founders of the united states and how the statist system fails in the end. If I find it, I will post here.
Here is a wild idea of a real progress: what if the state would get its money from donations (like some churches do)?
A system where people will choose if and how much to pay only state organizations that have results and can be verified.
If this will happen on a large scale, nobody would pay to support ridiculous laws or wars. The very essence of a state based system is to impose mandatory taxation and this would be a great blow to its core.
So a useful "next step" in evolution of our freedom would be to at least expand this concept. To support every kind of flexible taxation law where people are allowed to choose where will the money go.
Other politicians will see that implementing flexible taxation will get them more voters and they will try to do it more and more.
-
Perfect society?
I don;t believe in Utopia. However, I believe in striving for it!
The best system to my mind is one with maximum individual liberty, a minimum of hierarchy. Very little (if any) real government at any level...only enough to enforce a single rule: You are free to do as you please provided what you do does not restrict the right of another to do as they please.
It's hard to create such in today's world. For modern systems already in place, my simple rule of thumb is this: Pass no law that restricts individual freedoms - only pass laws that increase individual freedoms.
-
Utopia, stems from a Russian word that means, nowhere
-
Don't we have something like this now?
Absolutely not. I pay taxes while 40% of Americans are on the dole. My money forcibly goes to a Social Security account I don't want to participate in. I am supposed to wear a seat belt by law. If I want raw dairy, it is illegal in some parts of my state. I cannot buy out of state health insurance. In Massachusetts, you must buy health insurance or pay a fine. I cannot choose to not pay for government schools. I could go on and on.
-
The best system to my mind is one with maximum individual liberty, a minimum of hierarchy. Very little (if any) real government at any level...only enough to enforce a single rule: You are free to do as you please provided what you do does not restrict the right of another to do as they please.
This!
-
The best system to my mind is one with maximum individual liberty, a minimum of hierarchy. Very little (if any) real government at any level...only enough to enforce a single rule: You are free to do as you please provided what you do does not restrict the right of another to do as they please.
This is more like what libertarianism is proposing, minus the government part.
People should not be in the position of ruling others or being ruled without prior consent.
-
The Founders of America were libertines at heart, many of them drank partied chased women , smoked cannabis an tried to have a good time, they hated the overreaching authority of statism, and fought the revolutionary war as a way to expell the British empire from their back yard. They tried to build a new state were liberties were guarantied, they didn't build a powerfull central government out of ignorance of what becomes of powerfull governments, they understood the catch 22 that once a great empire threatins the people of the regions of the world the only way to protect the people from that tyranny is to form a confederation that can meet that threat with equal force. Of course once the empire is vanquished there are always great forces from within that are eager to form their own empire. The founders knew what potential monster they were creating, they were only optimistic that the framework of their government would protect the people for long enough to be able to develop a better way. It was the best they could do. They all warned the next generation about the return of tyranny , but by then the money changers had already begun their building of the American empire. Listen to their warnings
History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance."
— James Madison
I sincerely believe... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23
The bold effort the present (central) bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it. Andrew Jackson
I am convinced that there might not be much we can do to improve the state of society as long as the Rothschild's still controll half the worlds money supply, that we all use to build our societies. Don't believe me
Watch the money masters documentary on youtube
-
I'm skeptical of all utopias. Here are some relevant thoughts on the subject:
"The Marxist utopia is an appalling vision. Utopias are always hells." --Martin Amis
"[T]he Utopian approach can be saved only by the Platonic belief in one absolute and unchanging ideal, together with two further assumptions, namely (a) that there are rational methods to determine once and for all what this ideal is, and (b) what the best means of its realization are" --Karl Popper
"Over the past 2500 years of recorded ideas, only fools and Platonists (or worse, the species called central bankers) have believed in engineered utopias." --Nassim Taleb
"There is no one right way to live." --Daniel Quinn
I think we're probably better off trying to avoid dystopia than create utopia. Humans seem much better at avoiding screwing up than at creating perfection, though we excel at neither.
-
I am still a hold out for the American Dream
Small farm villa, 40 achers and a mule where Me,the wife and my children can subsist off the free range live stock, and co-op with neighbors for the rest of our matterial necessities. Educate the young to live free and follow their hearts. And If they wish to go out into Babylon then they can allways have no worries because the homestead will always be there to take them back.
I have already taken the first steps, I free range chickens and have the kids gather eggs. I was milking two goats until I slaughtered them for meat, I want to raise the little ones in the spirit of tom sawyer and when they are older I will take them down the Kentucky river on a raft and adventure through Dannel boons national forrest. My boy loves to run through the creeks and I point out all the wild life(he says he is fishing for whales).I am going to give them a classical education. Perhaps they can carry on the torch toward the promise land.
This may be only a dream, but so what ,If I cant escape the dystopia that is encroaching around me then I would rather ride out like Don Quixote And proclaim my greatness and bring honor to the waste land while riding on my jackass, you are what you dream,
There have been good societies of people who have lived that type of dream I hold as an Ideal, they were called the vagabonds and gypsies, their camps were often full of life and cheer and good company, they were the fringe of society and although not perfect it offered the next best thing(something Real)
I believe our species is tribal by nature and large hive like societies are against our nature so no optimal communities can be maintained within the framework of the great society(cultivate a smaller garden; its much more rewarding than working on the big Agra farm)
I am not a wealth man but I am rich in other ways, (Its not having what you want its making the most of what you got)
-
The founders may have been libertarian at heart but they created a government which is quite the opposite of libertarianism. If you put a small group of people in charge of all, that group will grow because the incentive to do that is so great. This has always been true historically.
Here is a video of Stef explaining how a small government cant possibly stay small:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_k93op7_Pc
-
If the government cant stay small then it must be cut down to size
Anarchy is as much of a pipe dream as Utopia, I personally believe that (all is as it should be) and the revolution must be continuous and never ending in order to maintain equanimity. Possibly its all controlled by the stars(can you escape your fate) good society must be found within the calm after the storm and must be enjoyed before the last wave thrashes the new fangeld way upon the poor souls who make a noble attempt at living a good life. We hear of legends of shangral and pax romana, or Atlantis, even if these societies were real and near perfection, they never last, so must they be flawed or at least sabotaged by the jealousy of the gods,(just musing while listening to stefs perspective)sorry for being nonsensical
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure." Thomas Jefferson
-
Wow, what an amazing quote from one of my favorite historical figures. Thanks for posting that.
The idea of a utopian society is flawed from the beginning in that it completely disregards the roots of human nature. We were borne in adversity, struggle and triumph; not just against nature for survival, but against each other for the best food/resources/women/men/etc. In an uncivilized society it made us stronger. Furthermore, this struggle is all emotionally driven, and each of our emotions are chemical survival mechanisms that have been honed over millennia to ensure our survival in a tribal, uncivilized setting. [check out http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/spirituality/the-true-nature-of-emotion/ for a better understanding of emotion].
Utopian society envisions no struggle, no one with more or less, no fighting or quarrels. It's unrealistic because of human nature. The real question is, can our scientists, engineers, and leaders figure out how to ensure our continued survival in the face of a cataclysmic event; and can they figure out how to preserve the planet which gave us life before overpopulation destroys it.
These are not easy questions b/c they don't have easy answers. If you don't have the stomach for it, turn back now. The reality is that one day a comet is going to devastate us. The reality is that while the planet can hold and feed plenty more people (from a feeding people perspective we aren’t overpopulated), all of those people do things like build cars, TVs, houses, consume resources – which all creates waste. Toxic waste that pollutes our land, our sea our air. Waste that kills insects, bees, reduces our intelligence. Food that reduced lifespan, health, IQ.
Civilization has created the de-evolution (devolution) of mankind in that people who would not survive in the wild b/c they lack the strength or intelligence, continue to pass on their genes. They don’t get weeded out. WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DEVOLVING.
And we are in the process of poisoning our planet due to overpopulation (the kind that consumes too many resources and produces too much waste). Not only that, one day a huge meteor will be on a collision course with Earth. Hopefully we have our weapons pointed at the right target instead of each other.
So do you see why there may be some people in high places that don’t see any other way than to reduce populations and keep them under control? Do you see how we are faced with a moral dilemma: Do nothing, let people have their liberty until we poison the planet and cause mass death and suffering; OR try to forcibly reduce population using GMOs, vaccines, laws, etc. They’re both “evil” outcomes. Pick your poison.
To conclude: for those of you who see utopian humanity as a simple, farming, growing culture with little emphasis on science and development, you ultimately believe that the doom of humanity finds us at a point and time of nature’s random choice. We can’t go that route. We have to form society, explore science, figure out how to ensure our survival and reverse temporary inevitable devolution with advanced technology (think genetic engineering) and try not to destroy ourselves with technology in the process.
I could rant on, but that’s all that’s in me for now.
Guittarman out!
-
"adversity makes men
prosperity makes monsters" Victor Hugo
Now there is an other option. When the comet comes to wipe humanity off the face of the earth, we could dig in, and form a newer blinder society of mole men that can then evolve to dwell in the safety of the darkness deep within the earths protected caverns.( life will find a way)Who knows maybe there are mole people that have yet to be discovered.
-
If the government cant stay small then it must be cut down to size
Anarchy is as much of a pipe dream as Utopia, ... sorry for being nonsensical
How would you cut to size something that has been historically proven to always grow and get corrupt?
Another question is "who's going to watch the watchers?" or who's going to grantee that it will stay small? a government agency?
I feel that this concept that "government is necessary because people are evil" is more like the "germ theory" that is enforced upon us by, guess who. Really.
The idea of a utopian society is flawed from the beginning in that it completely disregards the roots of human nature. We were borne in adversity, struggle and triumph; not just against nature for survival, but against each other for the best food/resources/women/men/etc. In an uncivilized society it made us stronger. Furthermore, this struggle is all emotionally driven, and each of our emotions are chemical survival mechanisms that have been honed over millennia to ensure our survival in a tribal, uncivilized setting. [check out http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/spirituality/the-true-nature-of-emotion/ for a better understanding of emotion].
I'd like to know how do you define an utopian society.
How would putting a bunch of people with guns in complete dominance (=statism) not completely disregard the roots of human nature?
I think this very concept, of human nature, is addressed and recognized in a libertarian society.
Think about it.
If there are 10 people, each with their own gun, and one of them suddenly claims obedience from the other 9 by threatening them, he will not be able to get it.
If you haven't done so, I would suggest you listen to Stef's arguments in my previous post and watch at least part 1 of that debate.
I think that libertarianism, while not perfect or utopic, at least addressed some of the core issues of our society.
Utopian society envisions no struggle, no one with more or less, no fighting or quarrels. It's unrealistic because of human nature. The real question is, can our scientists, engineers, and leaders figure out how to ensure our continued survival in the face of a cataclysmic event; and can they figure out how to preserve the planet which gave us life before overpopulation destroys it.
These are not easy questions b/c they don't have easy answers. If you don't have the stomach for it, turn back now. The reality is that one day a comet is going to devastate us. The reality is that while the planet can hold and feed plenty more people (from a feeding people perspective we aren’t overpopulated), all of those people do things like build cars, TVs, houses, consume resources – which all creates waste. Toxic waste that pollutes our land, our sea our air. Waste that kills insects, bees, reduces our intelligence. Food that reduced lifespan, health, IQ.
Civilization has created the de-evolution (devolution) of mankind in that people who would not survive in the wild b/c they lack the strength or intelligence, continue to pass on their genes. They don’t get weeded out. WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DEVOLVING.
And we are in the process of poisoning our planet due to overpopulation (the kind that consumes too many resources and produces too much waste). Not only that, one day a huge meteor will be on a collision course with Earth. Hopefully we have our weapons pointed at the right target instead of each other.
So do you see why there may be some people in high places that don’t see any other way than to reduce populations and keep them under control? Do you see how we are faced with a moral dilemma: Do nothing, let people have their liberty until we poison the planet and cause mass death and suffering; OR try to forcibly reduce population using GMOs, vaccines, laws, etc. They’re both “evil” outcomes. Pick your poison.
To conclude: for those of you who see utopian humanity as a simple, farming, growing culture with little emphasis on science and development, you ultimately believe that the doom of humanity finds us at a point and time of nature’s random choice. We can’t go that route. We have to form society, explore science, figure out how to ensure our survival and reverse temporary inevitable devolution with advanced technology (think genetic engineering) and try not to destroy ourselves with technology in the process.
I could rant on, but that’s all that’s in me for now.
Guittarman out!
The idea that government can protect people of a cataclysmic event (or should regulate population growth) better than a competition driven free market does not seem plausible to me. In the case of a cataclysm, a government would more likely do like in the "2012" movie.
I cannot agree with the mentality of just waiting and pick up bits and pieces of what falls on the ground while losing your freedom of choice more and more.
If we take our raw meat and go live isolated in the woods, than we do not contribute anything to the progress of society and to the progress of ourselves. It wont be long before the woods will not provide shelter anymore. Than we would be forced to fight or to submit to eating canned processed foods just because in the past we turned our face away instead of trying to come up with a solution.
-
perfect society: hmmm, minimum government, Zero federal reserve, zero IRS, no democracy where majority rule because a democracy easily turns into fascism. Read Plato's Republic. A republic is the best system, and Jefferson knew it. A republic is where anyone is allowed to do as they please as long as they do not conflict the rights of others. Everyone has certain rights from birth. No one is allowed to have any form of absolute power.
In the US, we need to: restore our constitution, restore power of the supreme court, abolish the federal reserve, and thus abolish the IRS. No income taxes sounds nice. Also, paying income taxes is against the law. Anyone familiar with the 16th amendment? The supreme court clearly turned down the IRS's strive to have income taxes. People have won court battles for not paying them.
-
The game is the same throughout history, anyone ever watch "The Good The Bad and The Ugly". It was masterful in the way it exposed the corrupt power structures of the world. The good towns people would have some stooge portrayed by an ugly foreigner, set lose to terrorize them by a blond haired savior who would catpure the fiend and shake down the poor people for a bounty that was conjured up, and then he would free the ugly and slip away with the good peoples savings, and repeat the scam in the next town, At the same time the greater powers were ravaging the land in the name of a civil war, which was instigated by other corrupt men for their own selfish purpose (Angel eyes played both sides). Its the same story that has been used since feudal times - kings would orchestrate mock battles to gain control of the peasants who only wanted piece love and happiness.
They sent the hippies to Vietnam, they sent modern troops after an ugly man named bin laden only to have him slip away again and again after they make off with trillions in deffence spending, Its the same racket and we must break the spell or it will never end.
Just as people find peace they become as gullable as smurfs(serfs) and allow the wolfs in sheep's clothing to Shepard them to the slaughter, good nature will always trigger the averouse of outsiders and eventually end a utopia before it can be established, But If the Elders can actually educate their young in the tribal ways of rights of passage and be wise enough to recognize and rout out disruptive traits from within then they may be able to build a functional utopia. This is why the industrialized established public education as a way to separate the wise elders and their teachings from the young who where viewed as factory fodder. Read "Dumbing Us Down" by John Taylor Gatto (it woke me up).
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men blessed is he who in the name of charity and good Will Shepard the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brothers keeper and the finder of lost children and I will strike down with great vengeance and furious anger those who will attempt to poison and distroy my brothers and you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.
Each man must build utopia according to his own vision. Try not to be bound to the decaying remains of yesterdays structures, You cant fix the Juggernaut give up the feudal attempts and start a commune
-
They sent the hippies to Vietnam, they sent modern troops after an ugly man named bin laden only to have him slip away again and again after they make off with trillions in deffence spending, Its the same racket and we must break the spell or it will never end.
Nick Rockefeller said that it was all planned out that we would go into the war on terrorism only to find that there can be no winner because there is no real enemy.
-
Good replies everyone. I agree that the government has purposefully blinded us and that the primary means of control is monetary. I agree that most people do it just for selfish gain, and I agree that it wouldn’t hurt to see greater liberty across America and the world.
However, I do think the idea of reducing global population is a "good" idea, in that it is the lesser of two evils. I think the powers that be (think Bilderberg Group, Rockefellers, not necessarily Congress or the Prez) are going about it entirely wrong. I think they continually jeopardize our survival by spending so much of their time trying to maintain control over people and resources, which leads us to building and maintaining a ridiculous overstuffed military, instead of building telescopes to scan the skies for impending doom. Instead of considering the weaponization of space to deflect asteriods, we consider weaponization of space to bend "rouge" states to our will.
I think their attempt at controlling society is also linked to experimentation on people. If you haven't read about it, look in to I.G Farben, the Nazi chemical experiments (aka death camps), and Bayer (yes the company that makes medicine). People in 1st world countries are really just part of an experiment to test vaccines, drugs, and soon, genetic engineering.
I don’t like the idea of being controlled - and really, if a monetary system wasn’t a necessity of society (at least for now), then we wouldn’t even need centralized government (which I would like) – so I don’t like the idea of being controlled, but I do wonder what would happen if power structures didn’t limit our full growth potential. How fast might we explode and just consume everything? Of course, maybe the free market could work that out, but maybe not. And since these issues affect every living thing on the planet, I tend to think there should be some worldwide and centralized amalgamation to think through these problems.
I wish there was transparency not secrecy, I don’t understand why they constantly attempt to dominate and subjugate people just for more power/resources. I have a hard time believing that they have our best interests at heart considering the mass experimentation and lack of directed resources at asteroid and comet impact prevention.
I’m not saying I do have good answers, just a set of ideas and series of questions that lead to complex postulations which lead to even more nebulous concepts and thoughts. It’s been a while since I’ve thought about any of this. I kind of had to force it to the back of my mind for a couple years just to get through the daily cycle.
Good thread, thanks for starting (we tend to have this one come up every so often and I always enjoy reading them).
-
I am still a hold out for the American Dream
You call it the American Dream. I say it's your individual dream which I encourage you to keep on striving for--it's just not necessarily my exact dream. One major area where utopianism tends to get into trouble is when one dude thinks his utopian dream should be everyone's and tries to force it on them. I'm not at all saying that you would do that--I'm just saying that those leaders who proclaim utopia tend to.
I believe our species is tribal by nature and large hive like societies are against our nature
Yes, many of those hives have claimed to offer "utopia" in the present or near future. I'm skeptical of their promises of utopia.
I am not a wealth man but I am rich in other ways, (Its not having what you want its making the most of what you got)
I agree.
@Guittarman--I agree that transparency is important.
-
The beauty of the American dream is that its a multi faceted Utopian vision that allows for the tolerance of individuals to pursue life liberty and the persuit of happiness on their own terms, so long as it doesn't prevent others from having the right to persue their own vision . Its a beautifully sentiment that has been perverted by the imperialistic monster the American government has become.
The American dream has nothing to do with the actions of the American empire which trys to Buffalo the people into a homogenized herd of human cattle in the name of liberty. Its the spirit of liberty copeled with honor and respect for the golden rule. It allows one man to pursue his dreams while at the same time protects him from the dreams of others. Within the American dream people preserve the right to opt out of society all together, or Build their own from scratch its only an Ideal and only a shadow of it exist in reality, but its all I have left for a hope of a better society, the dream is what keeps me sane.)
The Amish have built their society , there are a number of communes that have been successful, the vagabonds chose to opt out of established society and camped out contently on the outskirts, Jack Kerouac lived on the road,
This multiplicity of different societies and ways of life within one nation is the Heart of the dream and I wouldn't trade it for any star trek federation Ideal that the New world order is going to try to sell.
-
The beauty of the American dream is that its a multi faceted Utopian vision that allows for the tolerance of individuals to pursue life liberty and the persuit of happiness on their own terms, so long as it doesn't prevent others from having the right to persue their own vision .
Maybe the more accurate term would be American dreamS? :) Rather than a single utopian dream of a uniform "perfect society", the idea you're talking about sounds more like the freedom for individuals to tinker and follow their own preferred lifestyles, their own dreams.
-
I think the society is an expression of how the children are being treated by their parents.
The "Bomb in the brain - The Effects of Child Abuse" series shows the correlation between child abuse and all kinds of negative personality and health traits:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbiq2-ukfhM
The solution that Stef proposed was to try and treat them better and within a few generation we would have enough "conscious" people that are able to realize the immorality of having a government.
I think we can do better than that and start spreading these ideas all over the world, because people already hate the government. They just think that the only solution to a 'bad' government is another government. It's like chasing after bacteria with antibiotics...
Good replies everyone. I agree that the government has purposefully blinded us and that the primary means of control is monetary. I agree that most people do it just for selfish gain, and I agree that it wouldn’t hurt to see greater liberty across America and the world.
+1 except for the part with "the primary means of control is monetary", the control is actually by force. People know that if they don't pay, there will be guys in blue costumes knocking on their door.
However, I do think the idea of reducing global population is a "good" idea, in that it is the lesser of two evils. I think the powers that be (think Bilderberg Group, Rockefellers, not necessarily Congress or the Prez) are going about it entirely wrong. I think they continually jeopardize our survival by spending so much of their time trying to maintain control over people and resources, which leads us to building and maintaining a ridiculous overstuffed military, instead of building telescopes to scan the skies for impending doom. Instead of considering the weaponization of space to deflect asteriods, we consider weaponization of space to bend "rouge" states to our will.
...
I don’t like the idea of being controlled - and really, if a monetary system wasn’t a necessity of society (at least for now), then we wouldn’t even need centralized government (which I would like) – so I don’t like the idea of being controlled, but I do wonder what would happen if power structures didn’t limit our full growth potential. How fast might we explode and just consume everything? Of course, maybe the free market could work that out, but maybe not. And since these issues affect every living thing on the planet, I tend to think there should be some worldwide and centralized amalgamation to think through these problems.
World population would stabilize to a certain number naturally because of lack of resources.
And monetary system is necessary even in a free society. In fact, it would even work better because there will be no state to generate inflation by printing unnecessary money.
perfect society: hmmm, minimum government, Zero federal reserve, zero IRS, no democracy where majority rule because a democracy easily turns into fascism. Read Plato's Republic. A republic is the best system, and Jefferson knew it. A republic is where anyone is allowed to do as they please as long as they do not conflict the rights of others. Everyone has certain rights from birth. No one is allowed to have any form of absolute power.
^ This is a self-detonating statement.
How is everyone allowed to do as they please if the majority are forced to pay taxes and follow ridiculous laws against their will? (even in a 'perfect' republic)
-
^ This is a self-detonating statement.
How is everyone allowed to do as they please if the majority are forced to pay taxes and follow ridiculous laws against their will? (even in a 'perfect' republic)
Well actually it is the form of republic plato laid out and the US founding fathers endorsed. The founding fathers hated democracy. Because a democracy says if 51% of the people agree with something, it is set in stone and un negotiable by the 49% minority. A republic acts as everyone has basic birth rights. Like the right to a fair trial. Remember a lynch mob is a democracy, a republic is the sheriff coming in and saying "wait a minute, we can't hang this guy without a fair trial." Then the courts decide, but even then have to abide by the law.
G. Edward Griffin, author of "The Creature from Jekyll Island" said it well, the system has to be designed in a way that no organization, federation, institution, man, etc... can really attain absolute power. There has to be boundaries. Because there are always gonna be scumbags out there looking out for their own interests. We need to design a system that deals with these scum bags. Im not saying a republic would completely work, maybe a modified republic would be better.
Your last question is the big one. However, without the fraudulent IRS and the Federal reserve, only government would be allowed to tax. Also, government would be the minimum, not the way it is today. Government is only supposed to provide services for the people, like building highways, and roads, etc... Not get into all of these other affairs. Government is not what it is set up to be, rather it is largely collectivism. Collectivism is the idea that government should take care of all of man's problems. It is a totalitarian concept and discourages free thinking. Government needs to get their hands out of our business and we need a completely different tax system. People think that government helps minorities and such with services such as welfare, but it actually keeps minorities down, and degrades their values. Welfare encourages single mother families and a poor society. It discourages minorities to take their own action to make their lives better. Finally, government needs to stop keeping information from the people "for our own good" because we are too stupid and dumb to make our own decisions.
Also, I did not mean everyone can do as they please in a literal sense. But as long as it does not break the law, or conflict with others rights, I should be able to do what I want. That means if I wanna ride a motorcycle without a helmet, eat raw meat, drink raw milk, not wear a seatbelt, thats my choice. I dont know why they are encouraging safe behavior anyway since they have an agenda to wipe out roughly 55% of the world population.
-
Government needs to get their hands out of our business and we need a completely different tax system.
lol, when you write things like that, it's like saying that you prefer to be shot in the left nee instead of the right one because it would hurt less...
Government is just a gang that claims the power to pass and enforce laws, tax people etc. It has been proven that this system only attracts people that want to profit and it can never function in the best interests of individuals.
By thinking we need a government you assume that a few people are so benevolent and virtuous that are able to meet the needs of everyone and at the same time not take advantage of their position of power. You'd have a hard time finding such saints.
My opinion is that several organizations in a competitive free market would be able to kick the ass of any government in terms of quality of service provided to people.
-
we are beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men
What we need to protect the meek and righteous majority from the overreaching authorities of big government and the uncontrollable greed of the money trust is a system that keeps both powers within a well defined boarder, if you cant do this then they will gang up and conspire against the best interest of the people to serve their masters(the money masters) those men in black uniforms work for government money and do so to protect the interest of the corporations who write most of the laws through government , middle men.
Lawyers for big business write most of the laws being rammed through congress without even being edited by the legislative body, there needs to be a well defined barrier that prevents this conflict of interrest, Its called treason and there was a day and age that they would hang you for it, Now the make you vice president Like dick Chaney who was head of the largest defence contractor in the world at the same time he was manipulating the people to accept going into a war that would profit his interrest at the expense of innocent lives(treason I say)
The last few presidents were front men for these secretive organization
Reagan was kept on a short leash by bush #1 who was the head of the CIA then he became president, Clinton who was a Rhode Scholar was mentored by the author of Tragedy and hope (he was a CIA middle man)bush 2 was a usefull idiot that was run by the same people as bush #1, and obama Is a total CIA creation, his first job out of collage was for Henry Kissinger befor dissapering to pakistan for a year with no record of what went on , for petes sake wake up
The fox is in the henhouse
-
It has been proven that this system only attracts people that want to profit and it can never function in the best interests of individuals.
I agree, but where did you find this proof? just curious. History?
The last few presidents were front men for these secretive organization
Exactly, finally people are starting to be aware of this. That democrats and republicans dont really oppose one another behind the scenes. Its like WWE wrestling, on screen they all hate each other, but when their show's over they all shake hands and say "good show". The media and all other forms of acquiring information is all run by members of the CFR and other corrupt groups. All part of the elite attempting to have a world government with chip credit.
-
pioneer,
Of course history has proven that over and over again. It is, after all, human nature and probably, to some extent, bad diets.
sabertooth,
I'm not sure it's all like WWE wrestling because some politicians (or interest groups represented by them) actually compete with each other for power, but that's a good comparison in terms of the show off that all have in common.
It is ridiculous and yet, people still hope that "one day" the government will be composed of virtuous and benevolent politicians if they just make the "right" choice on the next election...
-
pioneer,
Of course history has proven that over and over again. It is, after all, human nature and probably, to some extent, bad diets.
sabertooth,
I'm not sure it's all like WWE wrestling because some politicians (or interest groups represented by them) actually compete with each other for power, but that's a good comparison in terms of the show off that all have in common.
It is ridiculous and yet, people still hope that "one day" the government will be composed of virtuous and benevolent politicians if they just make the "right" choice on the next election...
Now we're on the same page and that is exactly what I am trying to say. There are always gonna be good guys and bad guys in politics. Therefore the system has to be designed in a way that no one can attain absolute power. You see, Hitler and his regeme did everything legally to attain power. Rockefeller, Bilderberg group, CFR, and Carnegie mostly do things legally to acquire power (even though there are some exceptions such as the Federal Reserve and IRS). The system has to be designed in a way so these fascist groups can not flourish.
You probably can agree that in general, most people look forward to the next election because they have the false hope that some knight in shining armor on a white horse is gonna come in, fix the depression, pull the troops out, and save the day. That is a pipe dream. Presidents, governors, and politicians are simply puppets for the real bad guys behind the scenes that nobody knows about. People dont even stop to think who funds the campaigns. US dollars are worth pennies now because the corrupt federal reserve simply prints imaginary money whenever they want and its not backed by anything valuable, like gold or silver. An ounce of gold and silver is worth roughly the same now as it was 10,000 years ago. Can you say the same thing about a green piece of paper? No, the US dollar is worth pennies now, if that. It used to be considered great to get a monthly pay check of $40.
I am digressing, however my point is that politics dont mean anything unless we know who is behind the scenes funding a certain party, and what motives they have.
-
The frustrations at the highjacking of our system of checks and balances by the profiteers go back to the very begginning and have been expressed by many of good people who really want to serve the peoples best interrest and create a better society, but find themselves powerless against the machine that has been set up to keep the little man in line.
Anyone ever see "Mr Smith goes to washington" Its an old movie that stars Jimmy Stuart about a good man who has nothing but good hopes of helping his community when he gets to congress, but is totally disappointed when he finds that the colleagues he respected are all puppets of the money men, even a fatherly figure that is suppose to show him the ropes is a mire stooge, and when he trys to make any positive changes he is viciously put in his place, until at last he is forced to call out the scoundrels on the house floor in a passionate filibuster.(the movie is still relevant to today's politics and I recommend people watch it for inspiration.)
I agree that its not all staged or controlled by a single power, but there are a group of outside forces that put the interest of their individual masters over the best interest of the little people. And It may not matter how many Mr Smiths we send to Washington if the machine is still allowed to remain intact, but I still think If we had a few people to rail against the machine from a bully pulpit then at least we would have people that we could trust keeping watch over the watchtower. We need another King Fish (Huey Long) to proclaim every Man a King, or at least some person who can name names and stand up with honor and cut the scallywags a new one. I have never voted ,but this election I have actually got a real candidate for the first time (Rand Paul is running in my district and he has my vote) Hopefully he is more bullish then his buttoned down father Ron Paul, I doubt he will enact radical change, but at least he is real and Judging by the controlled medias attacks on him, he must be a legitimate threat to some very powerfull people.
-
Yes definitely vote for him. There are various banned media videos all over youtube of Ron speaking about all these issues of corruption. His main motive was to not have secrets from the American people.
-
I've said this before and I'll say it again, it's fascinating how many Paleo dieters have a libertarian orientation, including several prominent ones like Kurt Harris and Nassim Taleb. I have a libertarian tilt myself. I think it helps me to question authority and conventional dogmas and thus helped me to be open-minded enough to consider Paleolithic nutrition, though there is dogma even within the libertarian movement.
-
Maybe this diet just gives us all enough sense and clarity to wake up from all the bullshit.
-
The fact that most people here are willing to consider many different, and especially non-institutional ideas regarding diet would naturally tend to over flow to other endeavors. At heart, I believe most of us on this forum are what you could call, truth-seekers, and we're willing to follow that rabbit trail wherever it leads, even if it means eating raw meat.
And there are some very simple truths about our governemnt and the institutionalized forces which control and shape our society. These truths are constantly obfuscated, so when we get a look at something like strict constitutionalism, the Ron Paul movement, or libertarianism, we have a leg up in that we're wiling to consider many options, and I think have another advantage in that we don't care so much where the truth leads us, so long as we can get closer to it.
Thus, the kind of person that would eat raw meat for health is also the same kind of person that would embrace the truths of Ron Paul, stict constitutional libertarianism. And make no mistake, the precepts of those movements are rooted in truth and transparency, even if some of the finer details may be debatable.
-
Truth and freedom are synonymous with one another. Without truth there can be no freedom. So as long as deception is institutionalized, the bulk of us are still all serfs in this matrix.
-
Maybe this diet just gives us all enough sense and clarity to wake up from all the bullshit.
I think it helps, but I was libertarian long before I tried raw Paleo.
-
heh, I just see bullshit everywhere :).
I have always found it odd that all the natural health groups gravitate to the same 'alternative' politics and often even have pretty narrow understanding of what it is they are fighting for and against, other then not wanting to pay taxes or force vaccinated etc... Ironically for me the idea of governing a complex system simply, and stating the simplicity as the efficacy and saving grace of that system that seems overworked or over-exploited, is sort of akin to like the appeal of breatheranism or some similar thing. I'd like to not have to eat too :) but the world isn't exactly set up to yield to my every desire or even my pursuit of every freedom, nor do I believe that there arn't certain sacrifices beyond even the most basic social contracts that seem to result from having the benefits of a widely inclusive and dynamic system.
-
"The world doesn't owe us anything, it was here before we were." Mark twain
That being considered a universal Truth we must start all our worldly ambition from that point.
If we want something out of this world then we must tune the power of our will toward that goal, and If the goals are larger than one can achieve then we must patronize others to pick up the torch and help lead the way, Maybe we are all in the dark, but until anyone can lead us to the promiseland we are doomed to wander in the wilderness, Until the rapture, we are forced to deal with the bullshit and perhaps use it to fertilize our thoughts and dreams of a better tomorrow.
Libertarianism is just the best we can aspire to under the current heap of bullshit that is being dumped on us from all sides, maybee one day a society can sprout from that heap and grow into something beautiful and divine.
I kind of resent the generalization that people who are proponents of alternative politics are more "narrowminded" than those who attach to the status Quo,That statement must be followed with a good counter point before I will let it stand. As for finding us truth seekers as odd I must agree we are not normal , but so what, once you know that Oklahoma city was a covert government operation, and that 9- 11 was a staged event, as well as the gulf of tonkin, operation Ajax, Kennedy being taken out, his son being taken out , Sony bono being taken out ,The engineering of the great depression by offshore banks, the creature from Jekyll Island being set lose, The total ignorance by all historians to the existence of the Rothschild banking dynasty, who are responsible for funding and instigating some of the largest atrocities in history and yet are not mentioned in an y world history books,is normality posible and can you keep your sanity once you know you are living in an ocean of BS that has been whitewashed for our own good, by hideen powers.
I am an Indigo free spirit that would like to live as an earth worshiping free love bird, but I am under the heap of BS as much as anyone, so I seek shelter in the Resistance movement, It isn't Ideal, but it is more accepting of my quest for personal freedom than other even narrower minded ideology's I have been witness to
-
well, that is not too surprising.
all of these are your opinions I'm assuming based on stuff you've read on the internet and were not there to witness. In importance to this forum my point was that even people on the extremes of belief in diet tend to all be sourcing the same crap off the internet and come to entirely different conclusions. for instance. a.) the government is taking my child because its vegan and the government doesn't want people to be healthy. ditto raw milk, almonds, spinach etc...is this conspiracy or is it the same old truism that people fear what they don't understand, and sometimes are right?
as for being the closet thing to perfect , I can give a few reasons why I disagree.
for one the very idea of public space is nullified by libertarianism as far as I understand. I don't know exactly what the protocol or tradition would be to such a system but that would mean all national parks, water systems in private hands. The very 'predicament' (if one wishes to see it that way) we are in has much to do with the original 'Robber Barrons' and the like influencing politics because of how the system is set up..making it very much less democratic right? So the goals seem to be very much in line with that. less government, and more importance to the market and what makes money. not what human interests are. Its just like with schools where when they do not have money (due to faulty government I admit) they cut all the things that are not seen as important. Corporations run these ways worse. All the media elements bring more 'surface' to our freedoms but the reality is as long is there is there would be too much power and greed it doesn't matter what the in between medium or government is, particularly in regards to 'knowledge' acquired though these information outlets.
also the fact is, is that many services people use in the modern world are just not profitable to be run completely privately. that might not be important to you and me on the surface, but people do need public transportation and other public services and cannot depend entirely on charities etc..Whether alopatheic medicine is useful or harmful, the fact is - is that people people do lose their homes because of insurance messes, so that is a real concrete thing, not something to be disputed endlessly in theory or to claim people should take responsibility for themselves, as if it is that easy.
the problems with democracy are fairly obvious to any intelligent person, but such a system actually removes the very process to create democratic uprisings ala the 'libertarian' forefathers. no public spaces, no public body, no unions etc...its basically a nightmare, and my belief is many people get sucked into these theories in much the same way (due to some inner dissatisfaction) its been suspected that the 'commies' went for the artists and the creative types. thinking openly means generally assuming the opposite of what anyone tells you that has something to gain, and this applies just as much to those without power as those that do.
-
I like your passion Sabertooth, and I carry that same desire, but you cant go around saying you KNOW 911 was staged or Kennedy's killing was staged etc... Some of those facts you stated were truths, like the creature from Jekyll Island, and are known history.
I am not disagreeing with you, 911 PROBABLY was staged, but until the truth really gets out about what really happened, there is just suspicion about what happened. There is a bulk of evidence leaning towards the theory though. The main one I can think of are the laws of physics, how the buildings collapsed in 6 seconds, and perfectly fell straight down. Also, many believe there never was a flight 93. I for one do believe that 911 was staged, but I dont know it as a fact. Until I know exactly what happened, I will not go around saying it is a fact. I'm sure you saw Aaron Russo's Reflections and Warnings and a lot of other truth seekers info. This is all great stuff, said by God loving men, but even they do not know what really happened. Aaron just said he heard Nick Rockefeller say an event would happen that would lead us into Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Iran.
You guys should all check out the "What in the world are they spraying" DVD on realityzone.com. And I encourage all of you who are adults with jobs to go to http://www.freedom-force.org/ and become a member. Sabertooth, you say you believe we all need unity to do anything about this, well there it is. The site is run by the same guy who wrote Creature From Jekyll Island. It's about people all over the world who want to stand up for freedom. The notion is that if even just 2-5% of the people in the world join together in unity, that will be enough to influence everyone and the information will begin to be recognized everywhere.
The only thing important in this battle is education. The more people aware of what is going on, the less that will cooperate with them. The less who cooperate, the less power they have. And it is all about cooperation. Cooperation is how any fascist tyrant gets into power; I.e. Hitler.
Also, I do realize that republicans and democrats work for the same agenda behind the scenes, so I am confused as to whether I should vote for primaries or not. The problem with voting libertarian is that the majority of libertarians are ex republicans. Republicans who were fed up with the republican party's lack of uphold of constitutional values accompanied by the fact that republicans are usually ruthless. Every time of imperialism (indians, phillipinos, hawaiians, latinos) was run by the republican party. However, with that all aside, I still favor the republican party more because they uphold many of the constitutional laws such as the second amendment. Also it seems that republicans are against big government and collectivism whereas democrats are for gun control and collectivism. Democrats also are the money spenders, whereas republicans make the money (usually).
Both groups are corrupt though. But I still feel that republicans stand for constitutional rights more. Anyway, since the bulk of libertarians are ex republicans, voting libertarian would take votes away from the republican party and give democrats more power. Thus, collectivism and fascism would rise. However, recognizing the fact that voting machines are designed to be hacked makes me realize that maybe it doesnt even matter who you vote for. We are all serfs and dont even have the power to vote. This is the reason why whoever we vote for needs to win by a landslide, so there is less chance of corruption in voting.
For everything I just stated, I currently have no idea what party I should be a part of republican or libertarian?
-
well, that is not too surprising.
all of these are your opinions I'm assuming based on stuff you've read on the internet and were not there to witness. In importance to this forum my point was that even people on the extremes of belief in diet tend to all be sourcing the same crap off the internet and come to entirely different conclusions. for instance. a.) the government is taking my child because its vegan and the government doesn't want people to be healthy. ditto raw milk, almonds, spinach etc...is this conspiracy or is it the same old truism that people fear what they don't understand, and sometimes are right?
as for being the closet thing to perfect , I can give a few reasons why I disagree.
for one the very idea of public space is nullified by libertarianism as far as I understand. I don't know exactly what the protocol or tradition would be to such a system but that would mean all national parks, water systems in private hands. The very 'predicament' (if one wishes to see it that way) we are in has much to do with the original 'Robber Barrons' and the like influencing politics because of how the system is set up..making it very much less democratic right? So the goals seem to be very much in line with that. less government, and more importance to the market and what makes money. not what human interests are. Its just like with schools where when they do not have money (due to faulty government I admit) they cut all the things that are not seen as important. Corporations run these ways worse. All the media elements bring more 'surface' to our freedoms but the reality is as long is there is there would be too much power and greed it doesn't matter what the in between medium or government is, particularly in regards to 'knowledge' acquired though these information outlets.
also the fact is, is that many services people use in the modern world are just not profitable to be run completely privately. that might not be important to you and me on the surface, but people do need public transportation and other public services and cannot depend entirely on charities etc..Whether alopatheic medicine is useful or harmful, the fact is - is that people people do lose their homes because of insurance messes, so that is a real concrete thing, not something to be disputed endlessly in theory or to claim people should take responsibility for themselves, as if it is that easy.
the problems with democracy are fairly obvious to any intelligent person, but such a system actually removes the very process to create democratic uprisings ala the 'libertarian' forefathers. no public spaces, no public body, no unions etc...its basically a nightmare, and my belief is many people get sucked into these theories in much the same way (due to some inner dissatisfaction) its been suspected that the 'commies' went for the artists and the creative types. thinking openly means generally assuming the opposite of what anyone tells you that has something to gain, and this applies just as much to those without power as those that do.
I'm not sure I am getting you point in the second paragraph. We are not moving towards less government, we are surely moving towards collectivism and fascism. You have to see that, right? We have been indoctrinated by all sources of information (media, news, etc...) with the notion that collectivism is ok, and a good thing. And I do realize one of your points. It's true that government's power is nothing compared to the power of the federal reserve and more elite parties that fund it. However, its the whole principle of the matter. The idea that we shouldnt make decisions for ourselves and government (or another power) should make decisions for us because we are either too stupid, busy, or lazy to do it. And your right, democracy sucks because of this point: The groups freedom depends on the individuals freedom, and vice versa. If the individual is at stake, so is the group.
-
I'm not sure I am getting you point in the second paragraph. We are not moving towards less government, we are surely moving towards collectivism and fascism. You have to see that, right? We have been indoctrinated by all sources of information (media, news, etc...) with the notion that collectivism is ok, and a good thing. And I do realize one of your points. It's true that government's power is nothing compared to the power of the federal reserve and more elite parties that fund it. However, its the whole principle of the matter. The idea that we shouldnt make decisions for ourselves and government (or another power) should make decisions for us because we are either too stupid, busy, or lazy to do it. And your right, democracy sucks because of this point: The groups freedom depends on the individuals freedom, and vice versa. If the individual is at stake, so is the group.
yeah, I can see that comes from the handbook but the truth is, is that even though the current government is geared towards policies driven by corporate influence into vast directives and intrusions, that is only because that is the way power works and what powerful people want. No matter what lies people spew, the fact is, having very limited government would be preferable to many corporations and their agendas are still their agendas either way. The government is merely the medium. the more you decentralize it, it sounds great in theory, but you just have factions that thrive as those that would suffer. This is how you get things like massive urban decay and ghettoizing of society, because anything undesirable and inefficient gets thrown by the wayside. in terms of those less than capable and their results and quality of life, that sounds more akin to fascism to me.
I actually think that is the whole point of government. people don't know how to run/do/understand everything themselves, and doing so has no benefit in running their lives, so you put other people in charge that like that sort of thing. makes sense to me. I don't want to wake up and think about my water and sewage systems, go out and try to fix roads myself, home-school my children when other people are way smarter than me just because I am totally paranoid about my water, city, and children. I'd rather live in a world of ignorance, but luckily I can see all the marvelous opportunity through all the other demented speculation while being fairly educated to the real issues that most people totally gloss over. Its basically a huge smoke screen IMO.
-
I actually think that is the whole point of government. people don't know how to run/do/understand everything themselves, and doing so has no benefit in running their lives, so you put other people in charge that like that sort of thing. makes sense to me. I don't want to wake up and think about my water and sewage systems, go out and try to fix roads myself, home-school my children when other people are way smarter than me just because I am totally paranoid about my water, city, and children. I'd rather live in a world of ignorance, but luckily I can see all the marvelous opportunity through all the other demented speculation while being fairly educated to the real issues that most people totally gloss over. Its basically a huge smoke screen IMO.
Haha, I know that man. That is all government's purpose. What I mean is when they are stepping in things they shouldnt be. Gov is just meant to provide services for the people, nothing more. But, I do understand your point, government is not all that powerful, it is the corporations and organizations with all the money. That is why there needs to be a regulator over corporations and organizations. There needs to be more laws imposed on them and limiting the power they can have. The topic of this discussion is also a pipe dream. There can never be a perfect society as there will always be people who dont favor it. It's like if everyone had the same power, the scumbags wouldnt be happy. Not everyone can be happy, that is democracy's dilemma. If a perfect society means everyone is happy, that would mean it would be okay for murderers to do as they please.
-
heh, well it sounds obvious, but some people literally don't get how costly basic infrastructure is nevermind how much things can turn to shit without certain social programs short of building even more prisons. If there was no money and no real standards for building and running things it could be way worse than Uncle Sam. think McDonalds building electric dams and Captain Crunch inspecting meat. No one seems to be doing much about Monsanto and co, but certainly the only way that will ever happen is through a third-party worldwide organization. there is no way to stop stuff like that otherwise without centralization.
The idea of regulating anything seems to be very much antithetical to libertarian and republican ideologies as I understand them. The basic principle I gather is that unrestrained capitalism will provide the best solutions for all provided there are very elementary rules on personal property. since the whole foundation of ills of society are essentially those beginning with lock-and-key style property and exploitation of resources and population, it becomes sort of counter-intuitive that the pursuit of property and the protection of property should be the founding principles of a perfect society. Granted that experimental attempt to provide for all without property don't work out so well either. I think the reason ultimately is that people don't know how to behave when the status quo fluctuates between abundance to dearth due to artificial conditions thus requiring control. But even prior to that in nature there will always be hierarchies and unfairness. The idea that there are governments, religions etc... to restore some (potentially false sense of) fairness again makes perfect sense to me. I see these things as neither good nor bad.
There are of course plenty of bad and nefarious things going on, but often there are also situations where people step in on varying degrees of the spectrum and get things done. wind farms, bike baths... It depends how your are defining services (and I believe implying basic). If one wants to get conspiratorial, personally I think since corporations + government are the source of most of the havoc that causes people to suffer, it only makes sense that people that have profited from the very mechanisms that make money should pay for other peoples crap from toxic water, power lines, cheap foods etc... No one makes money independent of that system no matter how pure of their activity. If there was no power lines, there would be no systems analysts etc..Theres a pretty simple reason why people from poor areas get 'brainwashed' into the democratic ideology. Whether its equally corrupt or not, its pretty obvious there isn't alot to feel responsible for tons of crap that you had pretty much have no option to do anything about from birth onward.
-
Based on Tyler's continuing claims that I'm motivated by and advocate some blindly utopian emulation of a "noble savage" utopian ideal, rather than do what works for me (see my signature), and just in case KD or anyone thinks that I believe in a libertarian form of utopia or any kind of utopia, I'll reiterate that I'm skeptical of ALL utopias and don't advocate any. I'm also not an ideologue, which is one of several reasons why I left the Libertarian party (of the USA)--I encountered too many zealous ideologues for my taste. I do still have some libertarian leanings, but they don't at all resemble what KD has been posting about--not that he meant to imply that.
-
That seems to be the voice of the doomed, there is nothing to do but centralize the power under a world authority to make sure the waters are not poisoned and the education is not brainwashing, no wait its already happening. most westernized countries get their public schooling curriculum's from the same UN think tanks and everything is moving toward homogenization. I was in the government education camps and was force feed the lies and intentionally dumbed down with the masses. I learned the truth way before the internet through books I camped out at the public library, lived like Quasimoto and talked to radicals while reading veraciously, some of my newer views have been inspired by internet conspiracy but the core of my resistance was born long before, anyone ever read Dumbing us Down, or the history of education in the United states, there are well documented facts about how the industrialist controll the thoughts of the public by indoctrinating the youth in public schools, as well as monopolizing the media outlets, this is happening,some may claim it serves some utilitarian purpose of the greater good,but I don't like being lied to for my own good ,like some child. I am not ignorant of the possibility that it may not be in the best interest for everyone to wake up from the lies and some people belong to the spirit of ignorance,but I shouldn't have to be a part of it if I chose to. There should be a way for passive Resistance and "civil disobedience"
My main wish is to be allowed to live as my great grand father who had 27 acres in the holler dug his own well an was a naturalist who taught people how to live of the land .Really the water is not fit to drink and our current schools are conformist factories and as the bastard son of the bitch named liberty I wish to at least have the right to opt out of the grand scheme and leave the best layed plans of mice and men(the perfect society) for my rabbit hutches and the company of a more tribal community. what is being done now with the over reaching authority and the nannystate government will prevent people from the choice of non compliance. You will submit and if you don't like the reservation that's being built and try to run out like Geronimo then they will take you out.
Does anyone know what is happening right now there are laws that will go into effect that will force you to buy government insurance and be forced into getting yearly physicals and from that point on the bureaucracy will decide what chemicals your body needs from birth to death. Do you know what type of power that is, wither or not you believe in the miracle of modern medicine you must agree that the type of power being consolidated is scary. If you are environmentally poisoned and see a government doctor he may tell you its all in your head and give you some mind poison and tell you to go away, it happend to me at the local health department. All this disease people are suffering is being written off by the medical establishment who are only interested in treating the symptoms and once absolute control is achieved through world wide universal healthcare WHO knows what nefarious population controls could be pushed through. The framework is being built right now with all the money that was hiested in the 2008 crash(completely orchestrated like the great depression) is being used to set up these monstrous power grabs, now whether or not that is good or bad for the peasent man like myself may be up for debate, but for that debate to happen we must know that we have been robbed and the supposed saviors are going to save us with our stolen loot. Its the globalist that are playing the old robin hood scam.(Just some crazy mans soapbox ranting, don't mind the man behind the curtain)
-
hmm, ok phil, once again here's a situation I don't remember singling you out in any way. I'm sorry you are having domestic issues with Tyler at the moment but I don't see how that has much to do with me. If I had a single point it was that the idea of true 'freedom' (the good the bad and the ugly) of nature is not made easier or more accessible by a libertarian agenda. This is a fantasy and it only tries to mimic this by having a survival of the fittest type of mindset which I actually believe is a simplistic way of seeing nature itself . This is propagated by vast amounts of artificial wealth that is inherently based in others suffering and subjection to trickery and has little to do with the actual reach of government. The zealous and hypocritical, hypercritical and cynical/paranoid behaviors are enough of a red flag for myself as well, and see no problem with picking certain aspects of those philosophies as long as one understands that there are indeed radical fallacies to much of it as with any other system. Right now after years of these kinds of arguments on health forums I personal DO NOT believe it is by any means the best of all evils, and gave like 2% of the reasons why I think that is. Like you, I don't think that makes me right or any authority on these issues or that my mind doesn't change.
sabertooth: AFAIC the waters are already poisoned and certainly > 99% of people are ignorant of >99% of most things and yes the history books are not accurate and all this other crap. Massive restructuring and change in mass consciousness and POLICY is needed and not individual enclaves of ultra zealots raised in christian summer camps jerking off to Ronald Regan. I think you are right that the individual should have the right to pursue truth if that is what they desire, and certainly there are many truths out there to choose from. The point is, is that radical is not summed up by being intellectually oppositional, it requires actual solutions and progress. IMO Kennedy was the radical and Nixon was not, just my perspective. The health insurance thing I agree has alot of nefarious sounding elements, but you got to understand these are also the same kind of information attack generated from 'the opposition' to stall and block such legislation that people simply don't want to pay for and that makes up the most of it. The fact is the majority of libertarians are not RPD dieters and do believe in conventional treatments they just don't believe they should pay for other peoples psychotherapy or whatever and the conspiracy stuff is really just fuel. The fact is is that I find this view of humanity to be pretty repulsive, and goes way beyond my personal choices for politics. Again when it comes to choosing between compassionate idiots and a bunch of yahoos who bomb abortion clinics I choose idiocracy. When it comes down to me being forced to do what doctors say, then I'll be on the lines with you my friend. But let me point out that this is an extreme dissolution of personal liberty and although there have been some stripping of constitutional freedoms recently, most cases have come from the right in terms of the patriot acts, abortion legislation, right to suicide etc...
-
hmm, ok phil, once again here's a situation I don't remember singling you out in any way.
And once again I didn't think you were singling me out. I thought I took sufficient pains this time to make that clear when I wrote "not that he meant to imply that." So I don't understand where you're getting this.
I'm sorry you are having domestic issues with Tyler at the moment but I don't see how that has much to do with me.
I wasn't trying to make any connection between you and Tyler and I don't understand where you're getting that either. I was just pro-actively clarifying my views so no one would misunderstand them as Tyler has in the past, but it looks like I need to do still more clarification here. You're comments were vague and didn't specify who you were referring to, and given how many of my posts have been repeatedly misrepresented in the past by Tyler, I wanted to make sure there was no misunderstanding here--not that you specifically necessarily misunderstood them, but with this thread going in a decidedly more negative tilt, I figured it best to take the precaution. If you don't want me to make such clarifications then I hope you don't mind if I ask you to please specify in the future who you are directing your critical comments to--and then I may not need to clarify.
To further reiterate--I didn't take your comments as necessarily directed at me and didn't take any offense. My post was not directed only to you or anyone one single person. It was just a proactive clarification for all in case anyone misunderstood me, as I've been surprised at how misunderstood my posts have been at times and think I may need to clarify them more, especially when discussing what appear to be hot button topics. I hope this clarifies things and I hope you understand that I have only good and peaceful intentions.
I'm not sure I understand the rest of your remarks, but I try not to get into political philosophy discussions too much in diet forums other than to note interesting connections like the unusual number of libertarian-leaning people among the Paleo crowd and wonder what might be behind it (and I'm not saying that libertarians are the majority among Paleos or anything like that--just that there seem to be more libertarian-leaning people among the Paleo crowd than in the general population). If I want to thoroughly discuss politics I go to political forums or chat with friends about it who I know won't take offense if I disagree with them on politics. Politics and religion tend to be hot button topics--that I knew before I joined this forum. The forum is already divided enough as it is between LC vs. higher carb, raw dairy vs. no dairy, lots of fruit vs. little or no fruit without adding political divisions, so I prefer to continue to steer clear of political philosophy debates here for the foreseeable future.
-
Its obvious if we cant form an agreement among paleo dieters as to the perfect society them we are doomed when it comes it incorporating the rest of humanity. I harbor no resentments toward the uncompasonate nature of human beliefs or Ideals. I Just want my rabbit hutches please George tell me about the rabbits.(of mice and men)
The picture is to big for us to discuss on realistic terms and I believe we are at a crossroads in this thread, where none of us is going to have a Revelation anytime soon. but feel free to ramble on. I just feel that some of my points are being missed and being confronted with exaggerated fantasies about that sexy Mr Reagan.Most of my extreme views are based on the belief that unless the people are engaged and educated about the possibility that tyranny will rise again, then it will rise again.
So if I go out on a limb and say something stupid just remember at least we still have the right to say the wrong things and you can breath easy because if I am still free enough to talk crazy then we are all free to speak rationally. I don't mean to be repulsive but I believe without the bad and the ugly there cant be any good, I prefer to be the ugly because without the ugly the good wouldn't have any body to to fight the bad with.
It is a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart,
you wise men don't know how it feels to be thick as a brick,
How can anyone speak for the common man
or even assume rational superiority to his backward supperstitions, I agree with Tyler that as soon as you try to civilize a savage with a foreigner Ideal you make a wreck of the bruit you are tring to help, That's why we are tribal in nature and not Hive insects, there was a day when the egos in the society's got into conflict the societies split, only now with societies of millions this is no longer feasible, so we have to find ways to live and let live, its not paleo mans perfect society by any stretch.
The power is bigger than all of us to perceive, but that doesn't mean we are powerless in our own lives and any Ideal must be lived in our personal lives so who out there is going to attempt to achieve something great, and lead by example the way to the perfect society.
-
Its obvious if we cant form an agreement among paleo dieters as to the perfect society them we are doomed when it comes it incorporating the rest of humanity. I harbor no resentments toward the uncompasonate nature of human beliefs or Ideals. I Just want my rabbit hutches please George tell me about the rabbits.(of mice and men)
The picture is to big for us to discuss on realistic terms and I believe we are at a crossroads in this thread, where none of us is going to have a Revelation anytime soon. but feel free to ramble on. I just feel that some of my points are being missed and being confronted with exaggerated fantasies about that sexy Mr Reagan.Most of my extreme views are based on the belief that unless the people are engaged and educated about the possibility that tyranny will rise again, then it will rise again.
So if I go out on a limb and say something stupid just remember at least we still have the right to say the wrong things and you can breath easy because if I am still free enough to talk crazy then we are all free to speak rationally. I don't mean to be repulsive but I believe without the bad and the ugly there cant be any good, I prefer to be the ugly because without the ugly the good wouldn't have any body to to fight the bad with.
It is a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart,
you wise men don't know how it feels to be thick as a brick,
How can anyone speak for the common man
or even assume rational superiority to his backward supperstitions, I agree with Tyler that as soon as you try to civilize a savage with a foreigner Ideal you make a wreck of the bruit you are tring to help, That's why we are tribal in nature and not Hive insects, there was a day when the egos in the society's got into conflict the societies split, only now with societies of millions this is no longer feasible, so we have to find ways to live and let live, its not paleo mans perfect society by any stretch.
The power is bigger than all of us to perceive, but that doesn't mean we are powerless in our own lives and any Ideal must be lived in our personal lives so who out there is going to attempt to achieve something great, and lead by example the way to the perfect society.
Don't worry, like you sabertooth, many, including I have faith in freedom and the common man rising up. Like I said before, the notion that just 2% of the world knowing what we know is enough to overthrow tyranny. Don't forget, many people like some above seriously believe all hope is lost and there is nothing we can do about it. So they simply throw up their hands and say I surrender. Good for them, if they are too lazy to do anything about not only themselves, but their family and future generations than I say congratulations, thanks for leaving this earth doing nothing for your brothers and sisters when you had the chance.
Also, I was not insulting you about the 911 conspiracy. I was just saying be careful what you say because nothing is fact until proven so.
The system has to be set up so tyranny can not happen. There will always be a level of duality in politics. There will always be good guys and bad guys, but the system has to be set up so ultimate power can not occur. More regulations on the power of corporations and big industry. Last but not least, to get to the real heart of all this, secrecy and deception must be forbidden. That is after all why we are all duped into following a bunch of corrupt, self serving banking clowns and becoming serfs in the first place. Ron Paul wanted to abolish all the secrecy. There should be strict, enforceable rules on secrecy. That is really the big issue. As long as nothing is kept secret, the people will always have the most power. And if they know what's going on and choose not to do anything about it, well, thats their own fault. However, we all live in a sad time where we all think we are at fault. Yes, partly, but a bunch of wise guys behind closed doors planning depressions is whats really going on. They knowingly allowed mortgage loans to be sold to just about anyone.
-
If I had a single point it was that the idea of true 'freedom' (the good the bad and the ugly) of nature is not made easier or more accessible by a libertarian agenda. This is a fantasy and it only tries to mimic this by having a survival of the fittest type of mindset which I actually believe is a simplistic way of seeing nature itself .
..
It does not seem like you know much about libertarianism, judging from the above assumption. I suggest you at least check out some of the free books from freedomainradio.com to get a better perspective on it.
Secondly, your points regarding public services have been addressed in the video I previously posted.
The system has to be set up so tyranny can not happen. There will always be a level of duality in politics. There will always be good guys and bad guys, but the system has to be set up so ultimate power can not occur. More regulations on the power of corporations and big industry. Last but not least, to get to the real heart of all this, secrecy and deception must be forbidden. That is after all why we are all duped into following a bunch of corrupt, self serving banking clowns and becoming serfs in the first place. Ron Paul wanted to abolish all the secrecy. There should be strict, enforceable rules on secrecy. That is really the big issue. As long as nothing is kept secret, the people will always have the most power. And if they know what's going on and choose not to do anything about it, well, thats their own fault. However, we all live in a sad time where we all think we are at fault. Yes, partly, but a bunch of wise guys behind closed doors planning depressions is whats really going on. They knowingly allowed mortgage loans to be sold to just about anyone.
I don't know much about Ron Paul but it seems that Stef does not view him as a very consistent libertarian. I have to check it out.
If you know more about him, maybe you can confirm if the criticisms in this video are valid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCF_Hh_YFtA
Also I heard that your constitution is written more like a religious book and is quite fuzzy in some places, so relaying on an ambiguous document is kind of illogical to me. I'll have to read it when I have more time.
My view is that, as we discover the truth about the immorality of the state, we can not pretend to play along because this means that we lie to ourselves.
The idea that one day a CCTV or sat camera may catch you and your kids eating raw meat and as a consequence you could get arrested for "poisoning them" is not very pleasant. Your kids would be put on a "healthy grain diet" recommended by all knowing state approved doctors and the world will say "justice has been made". The only way we can prevent the that from happening is we can stop fooling ourselves in order to believe in statist propaganda as if that will protect our freedoms.
-
Also I heard that your constitution is written more like a religious book and is quite fuzzy in some places, so relaying on an ambiguous document is kind of illogical to me. I'll have to read it when I have more time.
No, not at all. The US founding fathers were very strong believers of god. So yes, I would have to say many of the principles in the constitution are based on those of god. But do not mistake religious principles as any different than the correct moral and ethical principles of man. Sure, there are other sides of the story about religion causing violence, but that side of it was not used in the constitution of the United States. The United States Constitution is the greatest single US document in history. To not uphold it would surely degrade US citizens values and lead to fascism. It basically gives people god given birth rights. Hell, if it wasnt for the constitution, Martin Luther King would have not had a powerful cause. Maybe there would still be injustice towards blacks today in the US. MLK based everything off of the constitution and declaration of independence. "To these truths hold evident, that all men are created equal." That comes right from the constitution. These documents were written by noble and honest men. They fought for a republic form of government, the single best government ever created (has been shown numerous times in history).
Quite fuzzy in some places? Well mostly no, but in some ways yes. Take the 16th ammendment, taxation on income. This ammendment was taken advantage of by the Federal Reserve and IRS to tax citizens income. There really is no law stating that our incomes can be taxed. Maybe if the 16th amendment was more clear they would not be able to get away with it.
The constitution basically gives all US citizens birth rights and freedom. Taking away amendments would corrode these rights/freedoms. Also, the reason why the US is becoming more of a fascist country is because of the movement towards negligence and ignorance of the constitution.
Oh, and Ron Paul is not libertarian, he is Republican, but takes a libertarian stance. Nobody votes for libertarians, and voting for them takes away from the republican party, I think that is why he is republican. Ron would be a better US president than any other that walks up there, because he clearly would not just be another puppet. That is what they all are. You guys thought bush was bad, obama is just as bad, if not worse. This is because it does not matter who is president. Presidents are just used by corporate and banking interests. Presidents are just communicators. They have no real say in most issues.
-
Watched the video, and this guys is British so it explains a lot. He does not know the constitution for what it's worth. He says that Ron Paul supporters want to restore the constitution, thus going back to the early 1900 state of less women's rights, less immigrant acceptance, less racial rights. This is wrong in every aspect, especially for the reasons I said in my previous post. If the constitution did not defend races, MLK would not have been able to use it to completely liberate blacks. The constitution also defends women, giving them the right to vote. The guys is just arrogant, without any logic or fact behind his motives. America was bad in the early 1900's but lets not forget, the constitution never was abided by definitely. The constitution is a document full of laws yes, but it is also a document which we US citizens use to move towards freedom. Not everything written in the constitution is followed, in fact we are moving away from it. Less immigrant acceptance, less womens rights, less racial rights, are not goals of the constitution, but merely goals of an oligarchy wanting to control its' people. The constitution defends all of those groups rights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzaLP9dTXhE
Here is one of the most influential videos I have ever seen. It explains how the US is run by bankers and we ARE slaves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg
-
It does not seem like you know much about libertarianism, judging from the above assumption. I suggest you at least check out some of the free books from freedomainradio.com to get a better perspective on it.
give me a break mark, I used my own words to discuss the kind of MENTALITY implicit in libertarian thinking. If these arn't the sole descriptions of everyone's mindset, so be it. The point is the whole philosophy is both naive in its expectations of what creates order, what is required for a complex system to move forward AS A COMPLEX SYSTEM (and not a few's fantasy of a way of life), and most importantly what is actually realizable in the near future. Since the latter point I believe is primary, the largest and most unfortunate result in people's obsession with such thinking is blockage and obstruction of any progressive policy that involves government. As I said it poisons peoples minds about issues from minimum wage to immigration which DO affect people in the here and now. Particularly if one has any honest (non self-centered) kind of of 'paleo' or return-to-nature type mindset, it makes very little sense for those who have accumulated wealth from such a system that exploits and poisons others (if one believes this) to have some sort of right to maintain their freedoms through wealth while others merely have the 'opportunity' to achieve freedom from impossible circumstances and existing lack-of wealth. Since as I already said (and as outlined by Daniel Quinn and others) the very nature of lock-and-key style ownership and production->profit is the cornerstone off ALL ills of society in its removal from natural nomadic behavior in the life-cycle, and requires no secret societies or complex campaign finance debacles to cause tremendous amounts of damage to the planet and human nature.
Any philosophy which talks about the protection of property and pursuit to freedom when their is clearly limited resources and possibility to have time and space to be free, is clearly coming from someone who has something to lose by sacrificing some of that freedom towards others. Yes, alot of it is valid frustrations in how those resources are used and this is not to say that all the other criticisms towards the existing systems in terms of efficiency or deviousness are not correct, only that other such philosophies (such as black and white thinking) could be potentially more devious and damaging. The reality is that despite the cahoots with government and big business that have created such problems, only governmental bodies are capable of preventing and potentially preventing sprawl, environmental damage, further distorting of our food supply to list a few relevant examples to those who wish to be healthy, never-mind a numerous list of those who are 'trapped' in more dire circumstances. Left without regulations, there is no way to facilitate a 'market' for such healthful living if those industries still have the grasp on information dissemination and is yet another fantasy of how such systems would eliminate poverty and poor products. like I said, very little of this stuff NEEDS to pass through a government at all.
So in that, despite the fact that you gave no response as to why I might be 100% wrong and instead gave bunch of references (again without even picking points from) i'll have to assume that the chapters go something like this.
Chapter 1.) Our government today is exactly what the founders of democracy wanted. Chapter 2.) Larger the government, larger the benefits. Chapter 3.) The government is to be trusted implicitly and taxation is the perfect expression of peoples wish to participate in government. etc...
Is this correct? surely its the opposite of what I understand so far. and may warrant checking out this book after all. It seems to me, you (like many "libertarians") are the one talking about some kind of mish-mash of political criticism, rather than a functional system of government that would serve as a replacement. Despite the fact that you are not American, I don't see why you are referring me to some kind of contemporary manifesto, when you haven't even glanced at the Constitution doesn't bode well either.
please, if I am 100% wrong , let me understand in your own words that there is 0 connection between libertarianism and Social Darwinism.
-
KD,
You actually believe that proposing "a functional system of government that would serve as a replacement" would work? Libertarianism proposes no government because a government is just immoral.
I tried to read your constitution but just could not go further than the part about taxation. I think no constitution is better. How can some dudes locked in a room think they have the moral right to steal from everybody by just writing it on a piece of paper and putting some lipstick on the pig by calling it taxation. Seriously, if you don't believe that taxation is stealing than I would like to know your definition of stealing.
I still recommend you actually get informed about libertarianism before you say it's naive. This is also because I don't want to write pages after pages to explain libertarianism to you. Maybe I will, but right now Champions League is starting lol.
And, pioneer, I did not have time to check those videos yet but I will say this: the fact that Stef seems arrogant or English to you is just a statement of personal preference and not a valid rational argument against his ideas. It's his ideas and moral integrity that I'm interested in actually.
-
I was actually going to take a view that the liberty movement is a counter balance to the social Darwinist ,now If you believe the fact that 99% of all animals are genetically dead ended and that only 1% is allowed to thrive and evolve, then you may assume that the top 1% elite of humanity who take social Darwinism seriously, may try to suppress the other 99%, and also there is about 3% active Resistance by the nobility of the lower classes(the sons and daughters of liberty) that are trying not to be dominated. The two sides of the conflict are the main catalyst that are responsible for forming the social structure of the world the other 96% have to live in.(my take on social Darwinism)
I was hoping to see more people actually commint on the zeitgeist movie I think that you should watch it major M an KD, If you really want to understand the true magnitude of some of the most profound Revelations in the world. I watched it a year ago and it set my mind free, at first I began to tell everyone about the issues the movie brings to light, but eventually discovered that people don't want to know how terrible the whole thing is( the turning away)
Sometimes I think that if KD and others with his good nature and rational mind would watch it, he may begin to understand what the liberty movement people speak for, Its not just the 3% of us humans lucky enough to live as the pampered house servants of tyranny, we speak for the 97% of the worlds people that live under abject tyranny. Half the people of the world live on less than a dollar a day, and people in internet land don't often realize the true magnitude of the empires controll over the third world and how there are policy's that were made to keep the have nots from rising up to the good life, this is a fact, Just watch the zeitgeist and tell me whats not accurate about it. It is a work of art that gives a perspective of truths that are hard to deny.
Its solutions given by the futurist are not perfect by any means, but its food for though. The core principle being that if technology was set free from the chains of monetary confinement, then man could build academy's of free people who could form a new society using the full potential of human technology to eventually reach that star trek version of the future( may be far fetched but its food for thought) If technology was fully harnessed then there would be no scarcity of resources, because the machines could produce anything free of human cost and therefor property would lose its value and there would be no motivation for people to hoard, cheat, steal, engage in war.(its a pipe dream worth dreaming about)
I believe it is the(common sense) of the internet age, please watch the 2 hour movie Zeitgeist if you want to know how and why people like me and pioneer have these views about the reality of tyranny. Most of the worlds people already live under the control of tyrannical elements, that's the truth. It is self centered to deny whats going on in the rest of the world while claiming that the tyranny is being exaggerated. Without the issues in the zeitgeist being understood and addressed the there will be no way to build a better society.
-
...
I was hoping to see more people actually commint on the zeitgeist movie I think that you should watch it major M an KD, If you really want to understand the true magnitude of some of the most profound Revelations in the world. I watched it a year ago and it set my mind free, at first I began to tell everyone about the issues the movie brings to light, but eventually discovered that people don't want to know how terrible the whole thing is( the turning away)[\b]
...
I think people already know but they are more comfortable living the illusion that they are actually free. It is too painful to admit it and, if they are relatively sane, they have spent their entire mental development period accepting or painting nice contradictory beliefs that allows them to live with it.
Now, here is what are the best possibilities/alternatives, in my opinion (presented in my own words as KD suggested):
1. A system of government where taxation is replaced by donations.
2. A voluntary society where property/money do not exist and people share the resources.
3. A libertarian society, based on the non-aggression principal, were property/money exists and people are only following rules/contracts that they personally agreed with.
I think the absolute best society would be the 3rd option because that would allow for competition to regulate markets, to maximize human's potential for creativity in solving complex social or economic problems. In short it would allow the maximum progress that humanity could achieve and it would create an environment where humans are motivated to express their creativity for good purposes.
The problems that I see with other concepts of society are the following:
For the government one, the very fact that giving a small group of people the power to control weapons and to give laws is like asking for trouble. The great progress with taxation being replaced by donations would come from the fact that the people would simply choose not to pay if government would pass ridiculous laws that people do not agree with.
At this moment I think this could be a way to transition to libertarianism, therefore supporting people who have the intention to minimize government's power and give more freedom of choice to people sounds like a good idea. I'm not convinced that R. Paul would be a good representative for that, but even if he is supporting a constitution (which is in fact a piece of paper) it seems like a better idea to endorse him if he is willing to reduce all laws to that paper. I'm not saying to endorse such a person from a moral perspective, of course, but from a "less evil" one.
As for the voluntary, common property society idea (which I believe the zeitgeist movie is promoting), it sounds good too. The only flaw would be that people are not really that motivated for progress in such an environment since there is no notion of property and competition would be pretty much pointless. I believe that humans are more motivated by the possibility to conquer/hunt for something intellectual or physical and this kind of society would not provide a valid way to address that basic need.
There is also a logical contradiction in this society. Do you see what is it? If not, can you share your kidney with me? You don't own it, after all.
PS: My current libertarian thinking trend is not new. I was never interested in politics or agreed that taxation is ok. I always viewed politicians as a bunch of notorious liars (which is what they are), but I did not think about possible solutions, until recently.
-
I agree with your third option but it is only feasible under an honest money system, which is what the founders wanted but never got.
Mayer Amschel Rothschild
"Give me control of a nation's money
and I care not who makes the laws."
as long as these vipers hold the power over money, no progress will be made.
I also agree that the technocratic utopia would easily be taken over by the scientific tyranny and create the brave new world of Aldous Huxley, so I am not to much of an advocate for such a federation.
-
if you had actual read The Constitution or any of the great political books of history, Rousseau, Thomas Paine, etc...you will realize that government was indeed absolutely necessary to leverage RELATIVE freedom over tyranny. The very existence of the world in all its good and evils is proof of this as no actuall feats are possible without collectivity and sacrifice or individuals personal desires for a greater 'good'. It is irrelevant in this specific discussion how these things can be distorted or perverted. Despite this fact you want to make these ridiculous claims, as without the constitution there would be no 'land of the free' but merely a collection of post-revolutionary enclaves that would have been utterly destroyed and under someone else's thumb again. such is life. Despite the fact that it has been pushed under the rug that medieval serfs actually worked way less hours than modern peoples, the fact is they had way less freedoms than even the evil matrix threat encompasses our 'limitations' today. If you want to go beyond the typical libertarian criticism of our current political system into outright anarchy or anarcho-capitalism go ahead, you''ll find even less peers there because the reality is most libertarian people when pressed about it care dick about anyone and are fearful of lack of base governmental systems (prisons, police) etc..that will protect their re-written social contract.
your thoughts on taxation etc.. are basically textbook and naive, sorry. I said outline something practical and doable in the foreseeable future, that didn't affect every persons minds with paranoia and reactionist thinking as I say from things like minimum-wage (stealing) public-transpiration (environmentally friendly...but stealing from those who don't wish to use it) to court systems, roads, research, the arts, education (unnecessary, DIY, stealing, Stealing/useless) etc...
to me, you really articulated nothing of use to me, or of indication that I don't know anything about libertarianism. In fact, you are advocating something that is not libertarianism at all, at least as it is defined here in the states.
sabertooth: I have seen all the zeitgeist and zeitgeist esq films I care to see. My 'rational mind' refuses to get sucked into such base criticality and blame of others and to appreciate that my slavery stint could be fairly less fun served in Siberia or mining diamonds in the Sudan. Other than that you make some good points and I appreciate your desire to save others, but the likelihood is its not going to happen by advocating policies which in themselves will not happen.
-
KD,
It seems that you would rather play along with the current system and are not interested in rational arguments. It is than pointless for us to debate about libertarianism.
And, to stay on topic, let us know your ideas on how to improve human society (if you believe that it's on an adequate structure) or how to create a better one.
-
In those isolated inclaves of the colonial America the spirit of freedom was allowed to grow unchecked by the old worlds empire, an ocean separated people like Thomas Paine from the tyranny he wrote about, I have studied their personal lives and many of them were misanthropes that dwelt in hermitages and may not of been the Ideal people, as for the midevil serf some of them enjoyed a much freer life than the colonial Americans but because authority didn't have an ocean between the slave and master, they had to learn to live on some terms of mutual agreement and many people enjoyed the fruits of life liberty and the pursuits of happiness before the libertarians came on the scene, what I am saying is that its all to big to scholastically put into a trite perspective.
All I wish is for some protective enclave of my own were I can live without giving support to the imperialist that are indeed using our collective wealth to inslave the third world, where to draw the line is the real question here, should I go to Waldon pond and renounce the worldly life or should I pay the Mafia for protection and enjoy the fruits of its illgotten wealth, each man must discern his own path. My people did suffer at the hand of the empire and we have also been beneficiaries of its graces, so its very complicated. I am only advocating for a more just slave master, I don't mind working my 9 to 5 and paying taxes as long as I feel that I can still be able to have some representation and be given the right to chose my individual slave masters (mob bosses)
What happened to the Jimmy Hoffa's of the world. The flesh in blood of the people deserve more consideration than the current Establishment is capable of providing and we need to let our voices be heard as well as be able to make the difficult compromise of freedom for security and materialistic prosperity
-
You guys all make great points, but lets get down to the dirt here and think of both sides of the story. KD, you are absolutely right about government being needed. Also, I hope nobody falsely misinterpreted my governmental status. I believe that government is absolutely essential for free society. Without government, there is anarchy and chaos, obviously. However, the real question comes with how much power the government is supposed to have. It certainly needs enough power to be effective, but not so much that collectivism is a result. I think many of you guys view government as the bad guys, especially major mark. However, just like blaming the president is a red herring, so is blaming the government. The real guys behind the scenes with all the money and power who are funding the operations are to blame. I.e. bilderberg group, CFR, Federal Reserve, Wall street, IRS. These guys are truly the corrupt ones.
KD I like how you said how not everyone is out to get us. We all need to be reminded of this fact. Many times people just are afraid of what they dont know. I am willing to bet that over 70% of the people supporting the new world order with rockefeller and such are absolutely oblivious to what they are participating in. The top 5% of the elite absolutely know what they are doing. These top 5% justify their cause to their puppets supporting it, and many times even delude them into thinking they are doing the right thing. In other words, the most of the people working for the corrupt corporations we speak of are deluded into thinking they are actually doing the right thing. However, the top guys absolutely are full aware of what they are doing and need to be taken out (should've been an assassin).
Anyway, yes government is needed, but not to the extent it is in today. And anyway the government is in debt to the federal reserve. We all need to recognize that what we are seeing today is a result of corporations and big business, not government. Major Mark, the constitution is the epitome of American freedom. It also literally can predict the future. Thomas Jefferson warned that since corporations were not on the constitution, they would come to power and corrupt. This has been happening for over 100 years in the US and is getting worse. If we do not stand for liberty, and justice we are slaves.
And the zeitgeist ammendum is very influential, but not everything in the movie needs to be taken literally. The first half makes great points with facts about our corrupt system. I agree that the system needs to be changed. However, his atheistic views unfortunately showed his self opinionated side. He basically wants a world with no religion, which is just his opinion. Their venus project is a good dream, but an illogical idea in the long run. They actually think that there can be a society with no laws. Where people can do as they please. The best thing the movie does is expose truths about corruption and inspire people to think and dream about a good society. However, for a realistic society, we will need to come up with something more.
Good points the venus project made about their dream society:
No monetary system= In the near future, money will be irrelevant due to the constant inflation (they cant keep printing money out of thin air forever). No monetary system would allow us to fulfill our full potential and do things for the good of humanity.
no gap in socioeconomic status( 90% of prisoners come from low socioeconomic environments)
Encourages the world to not be divided, but to come together in peace
I have come to the conclusion that there does need to be a new world order. We all hear those words and think of it being bad, but it is only bad if it only benefits a few. A new world order is inevitable whether we like it or not. It might as well be in the right direction. I dont think we can keep thinking of our countries as divided anymore either. With nation's division, there can never be a just and fair world. Zeitgeist does not speak of the population issue as well. Surely it is a problem on both sides of the story.
-
It seems that you would rather play along with the current system and are not interested in rational arguments. It is than pointless for us to debate about libertarianism.
yup, must be a statist! pathetic.
Mark, all of your 'arguments' are simplistic pipe dreams and/or have not responded at all to specifics and even insulted my knowledge while presenting little. All my responses have to do with the gritty unfortunate reality that society has never functioned in the way you speak, so who is being irrational? The problems originate with property, not with government and anyone with any understanding of traditional peoples should know this. You could not improve on a HG society by instituting a 'not-government' of libertarianism where certain parts of the tribe could achieve extreme levels of wealth by exploiting others resources unfettered by law or god and altering their landscape and the life-cycle. Conversely, It is a complete falsity that would create such a similar habitat or dialogue like HG peoples by removing government, as it just creates more of a playground for humanities worst vices and control-dramas. The idea of ownership of land while others have no land, food, no access to hunting, fishing, and clean water, and being able to not pay for others suffering and compensation far fits my definition of stealing. If others could give two shits and arn't coerced to doing something about thw worlds ills other than their own sense of morality and charity, Should I praise the fact that I am free to clean the waters and repopulated the forests with a dustpan and an eyedropper? Seems like I would choose having others pay for that stuff right now rather than have the 'freedom' that you and others speak of. I've slept outside before and it ain't no picnic. freedom isn't always what it is cracked out to be.
Also btw, there ARE people that do not pay taxes for political reasons, they are called political tax protesters. There are some of which who havn't paid taxes due to and since the Vietnam War successfully. If this was any other era, or we were actually speaking about the mafia or any other overblown comparison, you would have your neck slit for not paying tribute, so to me thats progress. Its very easy to feel boxed in or stuck in the 'matrix' like realization of how we are not free, but the situation in the day to day is very freeing with the right mindset.
Since you don't actually want to engage in any actual issue you or I presented, I'll just say that the idea of donation based 'governance' and policy is completely unprecedented, even prior to systems of taxation. Please show me a 'rationalization' by stating that you yourself have donated money towards others education, health needs, retirement, and societal infrastructure and I will agree that no one has a right to 'steal' from you. Or is your income too held back from our evil and inefficient system for you to be so generous? Assuming the system you like is implemented and the world doesn't become a place of infinite wealth and progress in libertarianism, if one is merely making ends meet, do you think they will 'donate' >10% of their 'wealth' to build a bridge 50 miles away? The one who is in denial is surely not the person that knows both sides of this discussion well, but one who acts on internet propaganda and their inherent sense of dissatisfaction for what the world owes them, quite ironic for a take on liberty. Since for whatever reasons (anger, poor self-esteem, nothing better to do, whatever) people are driven to such nonsense quite frequently in these kinds of communities, I'd say my take is more radical than you think. Alot about these ideas is appealing even to myself but it is ultimately wrong when one actually considers the evidence instead of allowing others to think for you simply because they arn't the talking heads on C-SPAN.
by example I meant something like this:
- a libertarian community is created within a larger system (most plausible occurrence) on some kind of island/peninsula
- everyone makes their living on some kind of agriculture/livestock and some high tech type jobs outsourced to the statists.
- they insist on being 100% sustainable, so they will export goods but not buy them from outsiders.
if some people actually wanted the freedom to go to the other parts of the world, they might in fact face
a.) tons of 'non-indoctrination' about how awful and wrong those other people are b.) obstruction if they wanted to build bridges and have economical transport for getting their which they did not intend on paying for themselves. c.) any other obstructions through disabilities and other such things. In short its a ghetto of who has economic means.
now, in the event of ANY disaster of man or nature (say a fire) destroyed all the food supply, and the only working currency is the products and services they provide, there is absolutely no charity or infrastructure to return on these peoples goods and services, and there is now no economy to actually provide for any repair. the result would be like corporations where someone else would come in and buy everything out, and you'd have to either move or work for them etc...how is this freedom or progress? wouldn't it make way more sense to just steal from the rest of the population into what amounts to .00000003% of their income to prevent these people's collapse/takeover? particularly if they offered some kind of product that benefited the larger economy. To me that is my understanding of a functional capitalism.
-------
If you want to hear my personal dreams, I'd say like with anything my goal for society would be small and short term improvements in policy. This would mean legislation that allowed for eventual massive revaluation of damage done through the environment and industrial products, probably would include higher taxes for the top 1% of people. On a local level it would be returning more arts, sports, and education like a greek style polis. Other than that, society seems to be alot better than it has been in previous centuries, alot more consciousness, alot more interesting things going on. I don't think they will be outlawing meat anytime soon so I am not really too concerned about any other poisonous stress people obsess about.
-
yup, must be a statist! pathetic.
Mark, all of your 'arguments' are simplistic pipe dreams and/or have not responded at all to specifics and even insulted my knowledge while presenting little. All my responses have to do with the gritty unfortunate reality that society has never functioned in the way you speak, so who is being irrational? The problems originate with property, not with government and anyone with any understanding of traditional peoples should know this. You could not improve on a HG society by instituting a 'not-government' of libertarianism where certain parts of the tribe could achieve extreme levels of wealth by exploiting others resources unfettered by law or god and altering their landscape and the life-cycle. Conversely, It is a complete falsity that would create such a similar habitat or dialogue like HG peoples by removing government, as it just creates more of a playground for humanities worst vices and control-dramas. The idea of ownership of land while others have no land, food, no access to hunting, fishing, and clean water, and being able to not pay for others suffering and compensation far fits my definition of stealing. If others could give two shits and arn't coerced to doing something about thw worlds ills other than their own sense of morality and charity, Should I praise the fact that I am free to clean the waters and repopulated the forests with a dustpan and an eyedropper? Seems like I would choose having others pay for that stuff right now rather than have the 'freedom' that you and others speak of. I've slept outside before and it ain't no picnic. freedom isn't always what it is cracked out to be.
Also btw, there ARE people that do not pay taxes for political reasons, they are called political tax protesters. There are some of which who havn't paid taxes due to and since the Vietnam War successfully. If this was any other era, or we were actually speaking about the mafia or any other overblown comparison, you would have your neck slit for not paying tribute, so to me thats progress. Its very easy to feel boxed in or stuck in the 'matrix' like realization of how we are not free, but the situation in the day to day is very freeing with the right mindset.
Since you don't actually want to engage in any actual issue you or I presented, I'll just say that the idea of donation based 'governance' and policy is completely unprecedented, even prior to systems of taxation. Please show me a 'rationalization' by stating that you yourself have donated money towards others education, health needs, retirement, and societal infrastructure and I will agree that no one has a right to 'steal' from you. Or is your income too held back from our evil and inefficient system for you to be so generous? Assuming the system you like is implemented and the world doesn't become a place of infinite wealth and progress in libertarianism, if one is merely making ends meet, do you think they will 'donate' >10% of their 'wealth' to build a bridge 50 miles away? The one who is in denial is surely not the person that knows both sides of this discussion well, but one who acts on internet propaganda and their inherent sense of dissatisfaction for what the world owes them, quite ironic for a take on liberty. Since for whatever reasons (anger, poor self-esteem, nothing better to do, whatever) people are driven to such nonsense quite frequently in these kinds of communities, I'd say my take is more radical than you think. Alot about these ideas is appealing even to myself but it is ultimately wrong when one actually considers the evidence instead of allowing others to think for you simply because they arn't the talking heads on C-SPAN.
by example I meant something like this:
- a libertarian community is created within a larger system (most plausible occurrence) on some kind of island/peninsula
- everyone makes their living on some kind of agriculture/livestock and some high tech type jobs outsourced to the statists.
- they insist on being 100% sustainable, so they will export goods but not buy them from outsiders.
if some people actually wanted the freedom to go to the other parts of the world, they might in fact face
a.) tons of 'non-indoctrination' about how awful and wrong those other people are b.) obstruction if they wanted to build bridges and have economical transport for getting their which they did not intend on paying for themselves. c.) any other obstructions through disabilities and other such things. In short its a ghetto of who has economic means.
now, in the event of ANY disaster of man or nature (say a fire) destroyed all the food supply, and the only working currency is the products and services they provide, there is absolutely no charity or infrastructure to return on these peoples goods and services, and there is now no economy to actually provide for any repair. the result would be like corporations where someone else would come in and buy everything out, and you'd have to either move or work for them etc...how is this freedom or progress? wouldn't it make way more sense to just steal from the rest of the population into what amounts to .00000003% of their income to prevent these people's collapse/takeover? particularly if they offered some kind of product that benefited the larger economy. To me that is my understanding of a functional capitalism.
-------
If you want to hear my personal dreams, I'd say like with anything my goal for society would be small and short term improvements in policy. This would mean legislation that allowed for eventual massive revaluation of damage done through the environment and industrial products, probably would include higher taxes for the top 1% of people. On a local level it would be returning more arts, sports, and education like a greek style polis. Other than that, society seems to be alot better than it has been in previous centuries, alot more consciousness, alot more interesting things going on. I don't think they will be outlawing meat anytime soon so I am not really too concerned about any other poisonous stress people obsess about.
Well, be careful what you say (knock on wood) because they currently are now trying to sell meat made in laboratories from cloning fat and flesh. They are trying to get FDA approval. KD, I do like how you voice your opinion, and you do make some points. However, I do not agree with your undermining of people who are involved. Sure, we do recognize that the world is better than it ever was in history. Is, or did anyone even argue that in discussing this topic? Why did you bring that up. There is no need to talk down on those of us who are involved because we are concerned citizens. I hope I am not taking you out of context, and I hope that is not what you meant. Remember, every overthrow of tyranny in history (in every civilization) was accomplished by the watchdogs, or people like us. Just because we are aware of what is going on and suspicious of government and big corporations does not make us delusional. Conversely, we are being more rational that the average 90% of the population sitting their asses on the couch popping statin drugs because they were convinced by a commercial that they should (humorously) lower their cholesterol.
What makes your opinions better than anyone elses on here to give you the arrogant authority to say all of our notions are simplistic pipe dreams. You are constantly contradicting yourself in that you say this is an open discussion, yet you talk down on all of our ideas. We are not idiots, we realize our ideas are merely good dreams. So is your idea of a perfect society. This discussion was meant to be a collaboration of intelligent thoughts, not a thoroughly drawn out on paper idea. Im sure your idea is not a well thought out idea, which you have used logics and history from influential figures and some how put it all together; so dont judge us for throwing some suggestions out there either. It takes decades to come up with a logical idea of a perfect society. And many of you are missing this basic fact that your individual ideas don't matter when looking at the broad spectrum of cultures out there. There can never be a "perfect" society because what's a perfect society in Russia is not the same in the US, or Iraq, or indonesia, etc...
-
Pioneer, your previous post had tons of great points but the problem you are going to find yourself in is that despite the fact that your views are not 'moderate' they would certainly be overpowered by either extreme that obtained power. This probably the main factor in why people leave/burn out from that movement, because its a house of criticisms and judgments rather than solutions. You can see this division even within this small selection of RPD dieters so you can see how it would be worse on the larger scale of 'meme' uptakers. People do in-fact believe we are approaching the worst tyranny and all this other nonsense, I think that is fairly self explanatory and present philosophy without my need to prove it here. No matter how much 'liberty' is in the role against the 'increasing socialist fascism' or whatever nonsense, you have behind that spectrum a whole group of people intending on dictating how others will live. Religion is just one piece. It has also been stated that there is no need for government, which is not at all what libertarians believe as you point out and as I've said multiple times. The reason that it is important is these distortions affects how people view all the little political decisions, I won't repeat those again as I don't want anyone to feel stupid.
this is a discussion forum, its my opinion if we are going to talk reductvism, we begin by both scientific and traditional models, instead of what we wish was correct based on our distortions of reality, like veganism, which I cannot dissociate from libertarianism.
-
here now we don't need to be vulgar by compairing are few libertarian commrads to vegetarians.
I believe the Greek city state ideal that is more akin to kds dream is worth picking on as much as any of our other Ideals.
Think of Athens and the birth of modern democracy and how much they accomplished in so little time before falling prey to the hoards of infidel invaders and over extravagant and decadent city planners. they did build a small oasis of life worshiping people who were dedicated to the Ideal that one must cultivate mind body and spirit into a whole and well balanced being. If that spirit could be reserected it would give some improvement to society as a whole, but its still just swishy washy.
We need to have public academies that teach children more of the classical education,. Children should learn how to develop actual skills instead of empty black and white facts. People need to develop into I higher quality at an earlier age than is currently expected, the new life of each generation has the potential to have the health and wisdom of the Olympians, but it is stolen from us by organization that dont want freethinking men of great quality roaming free in society(we are being culled on so many levels. We need to first develop more perfect individuals before trying to attempt to change society. Where are the Renaissance men of our generation( they are languishing in the public schools)
-
Pioneer, your previous post had tons of great points but the problem you are going to find yourself in is that despite the fact that your views are not 'moderate' they would certainly be overpowered by either extreme that obtained power. This probably the main factor in why people leave/burn out from that movement, because its a house of criticisms and judgments rather than solutions. You can see this division even within this small selection of RPD dieters so you can see how it would be worse on the larger scale of 'meme' uptakers. People do in-fact believe we are approaching the worst tyranny and all this other nonsense, I think that is fairly self explanatory and present philosophy without my need to prove it here. No matter how much 'liberty' is in the role against the 'increasing socialist fascism' or whatever nonsense, you have behind that spectrum a whole group of people intending on dictating how others will live. Religion is just one piece. It has also been stated that there is no need for government, which is not at all what libertarians believe as you point out and as I've said multiple times. The reason that it is important is these distortions affects how people view all the little political decisions, I won't repeat those again as I don't want anyone to feel stupid.
this is a discussion forum, its my opinion if we are going to talk reductvism, we begin by both scientific and traditional models, instead of what we wish was correct based on our distortions of reality, like veganism, which I cannot dissociate from libertarianism.
Well, the idea that we are approaching the worst tyranny is open to interpretation. On one hand, no, there is no way we could possibly be in the worst tyranny because think of times in history like the egyptian slaves and even examples today like china's semi totalitarian government. However, the kind of tyranny, which is possible, is the subtle formation of power in the hands of an oligarchy (which is already happening). The very notion that this oligarchy has the power to do whatever they wish to do is what is truly scary. If 1% of the population can do anything they want, how is that free? How is that just? This whole argument we have is not about the formal government, rather an invisible oligarchy of a few powerful men. And if you wanna bring logic or facts into this, this is just pure history. Do the research, and you will find that pretty much every society had an oligarchy. What makes our modern "civilized" society any different?
Call us crazy, or what have you, but our main cause is fighting for the right to know the truths that are kept from us. A society without secrets would be a great start. It's what kennedy fought for, and theorists feel that that is why he was assassinated. When we all get down to the bulk of it, the main thing we need is REAL information. Real education. Without these essential things, what is the point of voting? I dont know about you, but my dream is to vote for a candidate who I know I can honestly say I know his/her real agenda. Lets stop beating around the bush with politics. I feel that once the deception and lies are ceased, we can live freer than we ever have. After all, a society, which is full of deception and lies is never really free. How can I expect to make an intelligent vote when I am not given the essential information to do so, because the information is filtered? This is just my opinion, so don't judge.
A perfect example is area 51. That whole issue is absurd. The government wants to keep it from us for our "protection" because we are apparently either too stupid to handle the information, or the information will allow innovative minds to spark invention and speed up science. For that, I see no other reason to keep that information from the public other than secret governmental projects with possible alien technology. Imagine how much more advanced we could be if we knew what really is in area 51.
Who knows, maybe the whole idea of area 51 was made up by the government to keep minds like us busy looking into stupid crap like aliens while the real dogs are making a killing selling unethical drugs. You just never know.
-
Sabertooth: its not an issue of vulgarity. Its no mystery that many vegans are libertarian, because they want to a.) do whatever they want including raising their children however they want and claim all sorts of paranoia to prove such b.) tell everyone else what to do and what is right. I'm not comparing people here to vegans, I'm saying that you can't base an entire philosophy on ideas that are basically made up fictions with no basis in reality + that people ultimately will not make the best decisions for themselves/others and the whole history of civilization proves this particularly when involved with commerce and profit. Many progressive policies re slavery, child labor, rights for gays etc... would have never occurred within such proposed systems of 'liberty'. I'm not trying to destroy anyone's unique personal dream, only keeping it within what I see is relevant when looking from a traditional perspective of workable societies that in almost all circumstances leaned toward collective efforts and minimal wealth. And by saying this doesn't mean I am against wealth in general only that its a poor motivator for creating a workable society when the only means for creating wealth are largely destructive.
again, no offense to both you guys because I respect your passions and such, but libs hate Kennedy and they Hate Hoffa, unions and don't believe in any public education, and anyone that tells them they can't do what they want to do. My posts are not perfect or absent of sarcasm and some jibes here and there, but honestly I think you've missed the boat on some key points which is why I'm being very vocal about it. Theres really no compromise with many of these folks. Pioneer, If you are focusing on the oligarchical aspects of society and its wrongs rather than government per se, than you arn't a libertarian or a republican in my mind. It is true that that some corporations have used the governmental structures to hold on to more power and yield more influence than they could without a government, at the same time, the very nature of that competitive style marketplace is bound to create these kinds of situations whether there is a 'medium' as I said at all. It is important to focus on issues of how the government and the FDA support bad (understatement) policy of subsidies and such, but honestly I think the only solution to that is going to be to get enough non San Fransisco residents to make a fuss over organic farming and other such thing rather than theorize toppling a government or electing people that feel that cutting programs indiscriminately is their most patriotic duty.
-
KD, let it go dude, you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to libertarianism. Comparing vegetarian's fanatic attitude with the rational principles only shows your confusion. That's why I suggested you get informed first.
Quit throwing irrational, hate replies here.
And, pioneer, the words "anarchy" and "chaos" are do not have the same meaning. One is "no rulership or enforced authority" and the other means "lack of order or predictability" (from Wiki). I used to think they are the same.
-
Mark you have said the same thing in every reply since my first moderate comment aobout the nature of even getting bogged down with such extremes, never giving a single shred of response or 'rational' evidence rather than judgment, that is very clear to see.
heh, I just see bullshit everywhere :).
I have always found it odd that all the natural health groups gravitate to the same 'alternative' politics and often even have pretty narrow understanding of what it is they are fighting for and against, other then not wanting to pay taxes or force vaccinated etc... Ironically for me the idea of governing a complex system simply, and stating the simplicity as the efficacy and saving grace of that system that seems overworked or over-exploited, is sort of akin to like the appeal of breatheranism or some similar thing. I'd like to not have to eat too :) but the world isn't exactly set up to yield to my every desire or even my pursuit of every freedom, nor do I believe that there arn't certain sacrifices beyond even the most basic social contracts that seem to result from having the benefits of a widely inclusive and dynamic system.
yes very offensive and ignorant to one who is totally insecure about reality perhaps. libertarianism is 100% based on the constitution which you have not read or understand, you are talking about something that isn't even what I'm speaking about apparently so there should be no reason to be offended. Yet you've dodged any personal questions about specific points in favor of blanket stonewalling and referring to base tropes like I am misinformed or whatever without even citing specifics. which things in particular are incorrect? that libertarians believe in a donation based government or that you yourself have donated in your life to others well being as a model for your libertarian'' progress? your use of words like 'hate' flows very well into my definition of non-acceptance of others theories that seem irrational like umm..compassion towards others :)
-
KD, let it go dude, you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to libertarianism. Comparing vegetarian's fanatic attitude with the rational principles only shows your confusion. That's why I suggested you get informed first.
Quit throwing irrational, hate replies here.
And, pioneer, the words "anarchy" and "chaos" are do not have the same meaning. One is "no rulership or enforced authority" and the other means "lack of order or predictability" (from Wiki). I used to think they are the same.
Good point, and I did not write them as they were the same. I simply said that they would be byproducts of a world with no government. They are, after all pretty synonymous with one another. With no rulership enforced by authority, there obviously would be no order.
And KD, where did you get the notion that libertarians hate kennedy? Every single libertarian I know support Kennedy's values and motives.
This is starting to be a pretty heated debate. Everyone seems to be misinterpreting each others' posts, or not even reading them at all, which in my opinion, if you guys are going to bash someone else's views without giving them enough respect to read their entire post than that is just disrespectful.
In regarding the constitution, if some of you haven't read the constitution, or understand it's significance, just please be quiet. The constitution is a US document that has fallen. Anyone who blames our problems on the constitution obviously is either delusional or does not understand the ammendments. The constitution, if followed correctly would lead to a great society. Am I saying that the constitution is perfect? Not at all, but it stands for the people and goes with the notion that everyone should have equal birth rights, which is the epitome of freedom. Like stated earlier, the use of the constitution has contributed for better times in our history. Black and Women's liberation (for better or for worse), order, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, etc... Sure there are some fuzzy parts, and it certainly is not a blueprint for society, but it is a list of laws and rights that basically stand up for the people. The constitution is just a start, whatever else some great minds can come up with will be the next leap.
-
And KD, where did you get the notion that libertarians hate kennedy? Every single libertarian I know support Kennedy's values and motives.
I'm talking politics, not values. Yes many contemporary conspiracy theorists believe that Kennedy was axed for being one of the few to actually take on the secret establishment - I tend to agree that that is likely FWIW. If one looks at his domestic policy to actually compare with libertarian principals its a different picture altogether.
- increased the minimum wage,
- increase and made Social Security benefits more expansive,
- urban renewal package ( more 'Robbin Hood' style governing)
- creation of the Peace Corps (extension of influence abroad)
- all the space program stuff (massive government spending)
- Area Redevelopment act which gave 400 mil in loans (taxpayer money) to 'distressed areas'
- created the Dept of Urban Affairs (more government institutions)
and this is after not even a one term president which was bogged down mostly with foreign policy.
the fact that the whole "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." which has been reversed to "Ask what you country is doing to you" by some clever libs is also one indicator.
which leads me back to my earlier statement that you arn't talking about libertarians but simply people who are suspicious and angry and also believe in a reductionist government which I have no problem with. Libertarians believe in the right to pursue liberty unfettered by government. My point with vegans was that people should not be able to pursue what they want unfettered by government. Pretty simple. I gave countless examples throughout history as to why that is so.
Nixon far more epitomizes what happens when one takes such views which appeal to business and other 'rational' folk, and way more of his eventual policies reflect this. As you said yourself (unless I am getting confused) you would vote Republican because libertarians are not in the fight for now. Therefore if you had to vote in 1960, by deduction you would have voted for Nixon and hated Kennedy. There's a great scene in Mad Men with this same situation.
In regarding the constitution, if some of you haven't read the constitution, or understand it's significance, just please be quiet.
yup. agreed. The very existence of the concept of liberty began in The Constitution and the European thinkers of Rousseau, Locke, Descartes and New World thinkers like Paine, Jefferson etc...It was liberty from unjust rule, not from rule itself. The fact that some believe certain rules are unjust does not make them so.
-
KD, I know you say that we are not reaching the worst tyranny in history and I do agree with you. However, watch this video. If you are not already aware, this has to be one of the worst things to ever happen to the american people in history. It is downright diabolical and not just in the US, but now the US is having drugs dumped into other countries. The suicide rate for soldiers returning from iraq is the worst military suicide rate ever recorded, and I mean ever! Why? because soldiers are now required to be screened for mental issues and are given addicting drugs if they answer the screening questions in favor of the symptoms. The news is filtered so much, but this is actually a huge issue and should be on the front page of every paper. By the way, according to these screenings, anyone can have a mental issue. Questions range from "do you ever get scared in the war, do you ever feel lonely, are you ever sad, do you ever feel home sick." and these screenings are not just happening in the military, currently 46 states do routine screenings on teens in schools. Also, they can do it without the parent's consent either. Because of the psychosomatic drugs being pushed, the pharmaceutical industry now rakes in 550 billion dollars annually. This is just downright criminal.
I could talk on and on about this, but let the video speak for itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1nbZCNDgbY
-
I'm talking politics, not values. Yes many contemporary conspiracy theorists believe that Kennedy was axed for being one of the few to actually take on the secret establishment - I tend to agree that that is likely FWIW
I think this had him axed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110
He took on the really big scam in town. I wonder how the guy could sit down...i mean with a pair like that and all. Everybody who even tries to touch this ghastly babylonian system of money lending ends up dead or find that they are suddenly in possession of child pornography or drugs they never knew they had?!.
The money powers dont give a shit about increased the minimum wages and such social programs, because they are going to wipe the bill off on the rest of us regardless. They always find a way. It's the golden rule. "he who has the gold maketh the rules". SO when you give a small group of people the power to summon into being money from thin air, you effectively hand over the power of everything to those same people. I wonder how that arrangement ever came about. because it sucks!
Nothing can change, no social justice is possible as long as that foul thing is in place.
-
I like zeitgeist part 2. That was very refreshing.
-
KD, ...pharmaceutical industry now rakes in 550 billion dollars annually.
sure, there is tons of scary things going on right now and alot of them ARE under the auspices of bad intentions which in some cases would fit the definition of conspiracy. Others I believe are more likely out of ignorance and desire to do either good things or merely profitable things.
my feeling is that although people have no problems 'questioning authority' of what the government of traditional media are telling them, they have far less filters in understanding that oppositional theories can be equally motivated by competing ideologies, particularly in regards to information about these such subjects of who has power. Hell you can see even with diet stuff there is more than two 'parties' head to head at all times so its no suspension of disbelief that things are not black and white. Politics is like a poker table not like pong or something. Its true The West has really put the strangle hold on things over the last 60 years on the world stage (other than China and a few 'rogue' states) even in our urban areas with organized crime of various ethnicities actually did pose small threats to power. But alas this is what the people want, that is the hypocrisy of most of this stuff as it all comes down to safety of self and property which is the basic social contract. To me it makes pretty logical sense that Iran would want nuclear weapons, but even though people are suspicious of the US, somehow the people that pose a threat to the US or the mid east interests are still villainized so they have to sacrifice their 'peaceful' non-interventionist mindset. If you want to protect property, and your property only has value or increases value through oil and pharmaceuticals, (or like everyone indirectly profits through services paid for by such profiteers) then you have to pay to go bomb shit in other countries, and on the converse I believe are obligated to pay for all the other domestic fallout of such profits.
The money powers dont give a shit about increased the minimum wages and such social programs, because they are going to wipe the bill off on the rest of us regardless. They always find a way. It's the golden rule. "he who has the gold maketh the rules". SO when you give a small group of people the power to summon into being money from thin air, you effectively hand over the power of everything to those same people. I wonder how that arrangement ever came about. because it sucks!
Nothing can change, no social justice is possible as long as that foul thing is in place.
I don't believe with a complex system like our own we can remove the electoral system and the governmental programs and the banking system and expect things to sort themselves out. It just doesn't work that way. Like I've said the things people do have control over the banking system for instance, they would just find some other medium to do so anyway. I don't see what other choice we have other than to create small models/examples of better living, better industries, and better communities while voting for policies that capitalize on the advantages of government while limiting its powers to benefit corporations or failed programs over individuals. and not necessarily 'bipartisanship' like the recent campaign finance disaster which wil just lead to more individually financed candidates. To unilaterally create policy based in either extreme of social theories (funding education always bad, cutting spending always good/ funding education always good/cutting spending always bad) is just no good.
-
Spoken like true yankee, and I respect many aspects of the yankee spirit, {utility over principle}
Its good that we can still keep the discussion on higher ground, perhaps we can all learn from these fundamental differences in our perspectives. :)
I still believe greater things are required to perfect an imperfect world, besides all the politics .
I watched a movie (dark city) in which a dieing alien race had taken control of a city of people and they used human bodies as vessels and could tune their minds in unison to cast a spell over the Humans, They were able to keep the people in the dark while they ran simulations and tryed to find out what made us human. sometimes a human wouldn't take to the simulation and would be driven mad by the futility of their lost existence. One man actively resisted to be imprinted with the soul of a killer, he learned to tune his mind to take control of their machines and he eventually liberated the humans from the parisites.
If we want to break free from the controls of bad society, we cannot just run headfirst against the political machines(they have to much momentum)
We all must first wise up and learn to tune the power of our minds in unison to steer the machine in a better direction.
Everything we have in society the good bad and ugly are a result of the power of the human mind to alter the reality of the environment it inhabits, so If we want to improve the social conditions in a way that will mutually serve the greater interest of people with differing goals; we must tune our minds and harness the power from within, in order to reach out, to teach, to learn, to grow, to sprout into maturity. With the maturing process of the mind, body and spirit allowed to develop without being shrouded by the Vail of personal truth and ignorance, we can begin our attempt to build a perfect society.
-
Spoken like true yankee, and I respect many aspects of the yankee spirit, {utility over principle}
I am not insulted :)
I prefer the term pragmatism however. and disagree (at least for myself and my own decisions - political or otherwise) that is has to be an either/or thing.
As I said somewhat jokingly before about the nature of government as people literally handing over power for pursuit of other things and that being a positive, I do find people seem to do better when they are involved in the things they know and are manageable. Unfortunately people do poorly trying to break down complex things into surmountable problems so they tend to just endlessly fuss over or criticism the complex things and talk about how until the big complex things change there is no reason to really do any of the smaller things. Makes little sense to me. If there is no chance of eating a 100% healthy diet in a pure environment, do you eat a 100% unhealthy one?
I tend to not even get in these political debates anymore because people don't know how to separate them from themselves, but the main reason i'm sort of vocal and possibly nasty about my POV is because I think from a health perspective it can be rather poisonous to see the world in such a way and I see it all the time even in non-political discussions. Ultimately there is no way to PROVE which systems are better, but one CAN look at particular issues and see how they shift peoples experiences and have fruitful arguments about that I think. For me I can see countless examples of where people have worked at their best collectively and examples of programs that have been highly successful.
Again someone getting involved in improving their health, does it make any sense to be burdened with constant thoughts about what is in the air, water, feed, internal stuff like vaccines, or triglycerides, BG etc....? certainly there is a time and place to work these things out and educate others if one desires and sometimes it is absolutely necessary to do so. However on the individual level, its way better to tackle smaller components of things within a larger underlying goal until one has a true understanding of that whole. This is true even if it is not ideal, otherwise the process of approaching an ideal becomes rather impossible with a distorted body/mind whatever.
-
I don't believe with a complex system like our own we can remove the electoral system and the governmental programs and the banking system and expect things to sort themselves out. It just doesn't work that way.
Let's just do away with the banking system as we know it to begin with. The idea of usury is offending and detructive to everything else we set out to do. I am neither pro or con democracy. It sort of works, has its good things and its downsides. For the mental state we are in atm. I suspect it is "as good as it gets" for now.
2 philosophers was debating what the better kind of governing would be. Democracy or Monarchy. After much debate they concluded that monarcy would be better for the individual and the reason offered was. "For as long as you keep the law of the land and pay your taxes, the king could care less what you waste your time with....unlike your neighbour!".
I LOL'ed
To unilaterally create policy based in either extreme of social theories (funding education always bad, cutting spending always good/ funding education always good/cutting spending always bad) is just no good.
I agree entirely. personally I figured out the left/right paradigm was a construct about the time my stones dropped, which was also about the time i started to ignore both "sides" rethoric. We do need an agreed to mechanicm that enforces voluntary fully understood contracts and we need someone to keep people who have intent to hurt others in check. Anarchy, self adjusting justice works well in a small setting but would destroy a large society. We need a financial system and we need money to facilitate trade. People who think that breaking down every social structure will lead to heavenly bliss has been misinformed. But as you say, it needs to be kept in tight check. People in positions of power and authority should be 100% open for all to see. that should be a requirement of those kinds of jobs. I want to read their fucking emails!
-
libertarianism is 100% based on the constitution
Actually, that is incorrect.
Libertarian philosophy stands on it's own, and the movement exists beyond the borders of the US.
The word "Libertarian" was first used by an Englishman back in the late 1700s and in the US first, if I recall correctly, by William Sidis (roughly 1940).
Modern libertarians are typically constitutionalists (with regard to rights granted to the government), but not strict (in the since that additional powers are handed over to the government and the vagueness of the constitution sometimes lends itself to the expansion of powers).
-
Watch this video where Stef explains why one cant limit the power of the state by using politics. He thinks libertarianism will be achieved when future generations will wake up more and more to be able to recognize how immoral it is to have a state. Maybe paleo diet can speed things up a little by providing healthier brains.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McNo62gpw6M
If (planets being aligned) Ron gets elected, he can:
- Cave in and ignore his campaign statements (same old, same old)
- Follow his agenda to limit gov starting a massive riot because it would step on many toes (with people wrongly concluding that libertarianism = chaos when things return to "normal")
- Somehow, magically, manages to overcome any obstacle and implement his plan (everyone is happy and pink pinnies jump around with joy, or not!)
Which one of these is more likely to happen?
-
Actually, that is incorrect.
Democracy exists outside the US, but the models for all the democratic revolutions in Europe were based in the upheavals in the US. It doesn't make everything the same or that things can't separate and have their own unique principals and adherents. Whether the term was coined earlier or not, I can almost guarantee most international theory is coming out of mid century America and based in the US's revolutionary history.
Not to get Bill Clinton on you, but the point was, was that and that the very idea of 'liberty' is a concept that was invented sometime in the latter part of western civilizations as response to situations where there was truly no freedom for large portions of society and there was literally no proper discourse and consciousness in place to discuss such things. To use these expressions in such hyperbolic ways in comparison to REAL slaves and REAL inequalities while citing such documents as rubbish is foolish, particularly when based on current and more surface beliefs discounting those document's importance and relevance is simply bad argumentative strategy.
the key word here is 'based'. its fine if one wants to have their own take on what libertarian means to them and its origins but there is no way these arn't based on ideals of thinkers that have evolved out of the constitution and prior, like as I said in the works of Descartes, Locke, Hume, Rousseau, Paine, up to Jefferson, all of which I have read extensively. So the fact that I have to read every website or youtube video on our current government misplacements of power to understand libertarianism is not valid netiquette in the discussion of such things IMO.
You make a good point though as its incorrect that the constitution when interpreted strictly (without amendments) leads to the necessary limitations to satisfy many with such reductionist ideals, as the very nature of democracy will inevitably leads to pluses and minuses of power shifts, particularly when the systems for electing officials are not fair in themselves (which they never were even in the beginning).
-
Any man outside of the control of the internatonal Numbers racket will not be allowed to achieve positive change, if the independents and libertarians get into office their efforts will be sabotaged and their policy's compromised by the money interest they are attempting to control. This is where my anger stems from, no matter who you are or what you believe in you just can run against the type of machine that is in place, and expect to be effective, there are forces greater than the heart of the people at play.
Obama is the great whore and the policy's he negotiates and presents(sales man style) have been decided for him by the internatonal numbers runners and not as his personal or political ideals; is that clear, real men no longer hold the reigns of government only a consortium of progressives and profiteers. The flesh and blood of the people is fodder to be manipulated into accepting the policies generated outside of their sphere of influence. We are made to chose between dumb and dumber and the people are feed up, but are still powerless to do anything but gripe and protest, shake your fist in anger and curse the gods, or just vote for Ron Paul
-
Democracy exists outside the US, but the models for all the democratic revolutions in Europe were based in the upheavals in the US.....its fine if one wants to have their own take on what libertarian means to them and its origins but there is no way these arn't based on ideals of thinkers that have evolved out of the constitution and prior...
KD - I agree with most of what you've said in this thread, and I understand your position. However, I was taking issue with your assertion, and I quote, that "libertarianism is 100% based on the constitution".
That statement is inaccurate, plain and simple. Has nothing to do with my having my own take on what "libertarianism" means. Words have meanings, and I have no intention of having my personal definition of a word in common use.
Libertarianism has roots in all of what you cite, but it is not "100% based on the (US) constitution".
My critique was not meant to refute your other arguments. It was merely meant as a tool for you to forge a sharper edge on your arguments.
-
If (planets being aligned) Ron gets elected, he can:
- Cave in and ignore his campaign statements (same old, same old)
- Follow his agenda to limit gov starting a massive riot because it would step on many toes (with people wrongly concluding that libertarianism = chaos when things return to "normal")
- Somehow, magically, manages to overcome any obstacle and implement his plan (everyone is happy and pink pinnies jump around with joy, or not!)
Which one of these is more likely to happen?
#3.
Surprised? Here's real-world proof: Gary Johnson.
Gary (a libertarian) ran as a republican for the state of NM. Dems were against him and republicans were against him. The state was in debt and in trouble.
To oversimplify history for brevity & discussion's sake, He won, then he told everyone things would be painful for a while. They were as he scaled back, privatized, and more. No one thought he'd be re-elected, but 2 years in things began to change...for the better. The state in the black, jobs increasing, unemployment decreasing, services increasing as costs went down.
We was re-elected by a large margin. Miracles continued.
He left office triumphant (though republicans hated him for calling for decriminalization of drugs), and then in came Bill Richardson (also a candidate in the last presidential election cycle). In no time flat, the state was back in debt, services decreasing, and the like.
When will we learn? I don't know, but the point is, Ron Paul would be able to manage quite a bit to help the country.
-
KD - I agree with most of what you've said in this thread, and I understand your position. However, I was taking issue with your assertion, and I quote, that "libertarianism is 100% based on the constitution".
That statement is inaccurate, plain and simple. Has nothing to do with my having my own take on what "libertarianism" means. Words have meanings, and I have no intention of having my personal definition of a word in common use.
Libertarianism has roots in all of what you cite, but it is not "100% based on the (US) constitution". ....
I don't want to get into the political debate, but Skinny is right on the facts of this question. Allow me to illustrate...
The Libertarian Reader: Classic and Contemporary Writings from Lao Tzu to Milton Friedman includes William Lloyd Garrison's "Man Cannot Hold Property in Man." Murray Rothbard wrote approvingly of Garrison in his essay, "Why Be Libertarian?" (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard199.html). Rand Paul said "one of my favorite historical characters is William Lloyd Garrison." (http://phdoctopus.com/2010/05/21/rand-paul-on-william-lloyd-garrison-and-segregation/) Yet Garrison publicly burned a copy of the US Constitution in 1844, declaring it "a Covenant with Death, an Agreement with Hell" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lloyd_Garrison).
Ironically, Rand and Ron Paul are Libertarian constitutionalists (they would likely disagree with Garrison's opinion of the Constitution, though even Garrison would have been less opposed to it once slavery was abolished and rights for African Americans and women were added), but not all libertarians are constitutionalists. There are also minarchists, anarchists, agorists, objectivists, leftists, anarcho-pacifists...you get the idea (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism). So Skinny is right that libertarianism as a whole is not 100% based on the (US) Constitution, or any constitution, for that matter.
KD, you quoted a number of other influences beyond the US Constitution, so perhaps what you meant was that most US libertarians share similar values with those codified in the US Constitution, or are strongly influenced by it, or something of that sort?
-
Ironically, Rand and Ron Paul are Libertarian constitutionalists...
Ron more so than Rand. Rand is far less Libertarian than his father.
I live in KY. I'm not sure what all Rand has said on the national stage, but locally he has said some VERY un-libertarian things.
-
#3.
Surprised? Here's real-world proof: Gary Johnson.
If there were no pink ponies it doesn't count lol.
Ok, I'm not surprised but actually more interested in details. Do you know other examples?
-
If there were no pink ponies it doesn't count lol.
Ok, I'm not surprised but actually more interested in details. Do you know other examples?
I have no examples of pink ponies. I accept defeat (hahaha!).
Gary Johnson is the only example that comes to mind in terms of the executive office (though there may be smaller-scale examples of mayors who are libertarian or libertarian-leaning).
However, at the national level, there are 2 groups of interest.
1) The Liberty Committee - Formerly known as the liberty caucus, this group is made of of libertarian-leaning republican congressmen like Ron Paul, Jeff Flake, Jimmy Duncan, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Caucus
Also of interest is the related PAC, the Republican Liberty Caucus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Liberty_Caucus and http://www.rlc.org/
2) Similar to the above group(s) is the Democrat version, the Democratic Freedom Caucus. Not nearly as active or as organized as their republican brothers (and seemingly less libertarian), they have never-the-less been on the move for quite some time.
http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/
There are meetup groups sprouting up across the country in support of both of these movements.
-
SkinnyDevil : OK OK. I concede that my wording was not completely accurate and my meaning too ambiguous. I'm glad you appreciate at least some of my thinking, if not agree with it. Especially with this lifestyle, I certainly have my own frustrations with our current settings sometimes, but I see advantages too. If I have a main motivator or agenda, its certainly to have honest discussion about such things instead of jumping to conclusions about how right something is, just because something else is is so "clearly" "wrong".
Phil: Right, I mean if someone really even wants to get into the discussion of what is freedom, you actually have to look back at the historical precedents for such things. I did not mean to imply that all libertarians were constitutionalists or Americans or any other thing, only that if we are going to be talking about liberty, and the systems created by men (good or bad or necessary) to facilitate such liberty, than we need a little constitution in the mix.
2 philosophers was debating what the better kind of governing would be. Democracy or Monarchy. After much debate they concluded that monarcy would be better for the individual and the reason offered was. "For as long as you keep the law of the land and pay your taxes, the king could care less what you waste your time with....unlike your neighbour!".
I agree entirely. personally I figured out the left/right paradigm was a construct about the time my stones dropped, which was also about the time i started to ignore both "sides" rethoric. We do need an agreed to mechanicm that enforces voluntary fully understood contracts and we need someone to keep people who have intent to hurt others in check. Anarchy, self adjusting justice works well in a small setting but would destroy a large society. We need a financial system and we need money to facilitate trade. People who think that breaking down every social structure will lead to heavenly bliss has been misinformed. But as you say, it needs to be kept in tight check. People in positions of power and authority should be 100% open for all to see. that should be a requirement of those kinds of jobs. I want to read their fucking emails!
heh, I think one of my favorite anecdotes about having a conversation with a libertarian (raw fooder, but not to typecast ALL libertarians of course) was similar. I asked him if within a libertarian (say world) system, if any group of people could create a democratic representation based system within that as a sort of mini state, particularly if their situation was not working per their needs. He said of course not, that would be illegal as it is immoral.
I personally think transparency and awareness are valuable tools to making progress (prior to any great revolution). I mean there are lots of freedoms and resources at ones disposal. Many people don't even have a library card. go figure.
-
I think one of my favorite anecdotes about having a conversation with a libertarian (raw fooder, but not to typecast ALL libertarians of course) was similar. I asked him if within a libertarian (say world) system, if any group of people could create a democratic representation based system within that as a sort of mini state, particularly if their situation was not working per their needs. He said of course not, that would be illegal as it is immoral.
Your friend is wrong.
That is exactly the argument that explains why (I'm being extreme to make the point) an individualist-anarchy is morally (& pragmatically) superior to a collectivist-anarchy. To wit: There is no way for an individualist model to exist within the framework of a collectivist model; however, a within an individualist model, individuals are free to set up collectives.
Similarly, within a libertarian (or even quasi-libertarian) model, groups are free to form co-operatives of all kinds. That is a cornerstone of libertarian thought - so long as the group consists of individuals who freely join (are not coerced of forced to become members), they can start, join, & leave any group they wish; set up their own rules; and the like. Even socialist (or other collectivist) groups.
Hence the moral & pragmatic superiority of individualist systems to collectivist systems.
You can't opt out of collectivism, and by it's very nature, collectivist systems DE-crease (rather than IN-crease) individual choice & liberty.
-
Gary Johnson is the only example that comes to mind in terms of the executive office (though there may be smaller-scale examples of mayors who are libertarian or libertarian-leaning).
However, at the national level, there are 2 groups of interest.
...
It would be interesting if any of those groups grab some significant power. However, changing things at the national level, would be much harder.
Many politicians today (even in my country) talk about reducing the size of the state because they probably realize it's not going to last forever.
Here's an interesting read of what happens when government tries to influence the free market:
http://mises.org/midroad.asp
-
... This is where my anger stems from, no matter who you are or what you believe in you just can run against the type of machine that is in place, and expect to be effective, there are forces greater than the heart of the people at play.
I think this is actually the wrong attitude to have, because being angry about something only consumes your energy in vain. Not really productive.
There IS something you can do right now and that is to live with moral integrity. This also means to stop associating with people that have self contradictory beliefs which do not agree with the non-aggression principle. Ask them, face to face: "Do you support the use of violence against me if I choose not to pay takes to support a war/law x,y,z, etc?". If enough people will start doing that, the concept of a state will become history. The state is just an effect of people's willingness to attack each other ("divide et impera" comes to mind).
The real progress begins on the personal level and nobody is going to do that for you.
-
The real progress begins on the personal level and nobody is going to do that for you.
Well said.
-
I am about as fond of uplifting proactive rhetoric as the next man.
My attitude may not be at its best when I try to express the total despondency I feel towards the state of affairs, But I assure you I have taken a personal stance against the injustice that righteously angers me. Anger is healthy and natural so long as it has constructive outlets and is based on real grievance.
I talk to people about issues that matter, the quality of the food is piss poor; the quality of education is abominable, we have such great technology that is being stolen from the people and put on some shelf in order to produce artificial scarcity and monopoly's over resources. I can see the far off calamity's and the very real possibility of a new dark age.
Deep down I often get discouraged and feel that all is in vain and the motions of the living society are as beyond my ability to influence as the movements of the stars ( a fatalistic disposition has always haunted my aspirations) I am personally outspoken and speak out to all who will listen, Its very discouraging to have to bare falsehood after falsehood being uttered by good natured but ill informed people, and I feel obligated to wake up the poor fools of the world , only if I had better means to do so.
-
I am about as fond of uplifting proactive rhetoric as the next man.
My attitude may not be at its best when I try to express the total despondency I feel towards the state of affairs, But I assure you I have taken a personal stance against the injustice that righteously angers me. Anger is healthy and natural so long as it has constructive outlets and is based on real grievance.
I talk to people about issues that matter, the quality of the food is piss poor; the quality of education is abominable, we have such great technology that is being stolen from the people and put on some shelf in order to produce artificial scarcity and monopoly's over resources. I can see the far off calamity's and the very real possibility of a new dark age.
Deep down I often get discouraged and feel that all is in vain and the motions of the living society are as beyond my ability to influence as the movements of the stars ( a fatalistic disposition has always haunted my aspirations) I am personally outspoken and speak out to all who will listen, Its very discouraging to have to bare falsehood after falsehood being uttered by good natured but ill informed people, and I feel obligated to wake up the poor fools of the world , only if I had better means to do so.
And the thing is, we are not all alone, turns out I just met a good friend last week who has all the beliefs as me and knows all the info we know, saw the red pill, and many G. Edward Griffin movies, knows how the US dollar really is not money but just a federal reserve note. Thats what we should be calling them from now on, and anyone who asks why? we'll just tell them "because it is made out of thin air by a privately owned bank, and is not backed by anything valuable such as gold or silver". Then, people may start to wonder.
-
Its truly astonishing how the intelligent minded working poor and white colloar workers are still so totally unaware of the total corruption at the global monetary systems they live under. Its seems almost deliberate that most people don't study to much about the nature of money. The middle class of the western nations seem to be isolated from the pillaging of the money Masters and are content to receive their kickbacks and live there yuppy existence as gatekeepers that act as a curtain for the money manipulators to hide behind. My own father has a masters in biology and owns his own business and is mortgaged up to the neck, and yet He doesn't even comprehend the way the federal reserve and other banks create counterfit fiat money that steals wealth from those who actually try to earn an honest living and funnels it directly into the coffers of forgen banking dynasty's.
Robert Heinlein was a science fiction writer and a true prodigy who thought out alternative financial systems that were designed to provide real prosperity to the working people while keeping the money vultures at bay. His book "Stranger in a Strange Land" is a good introduction to his utopia.
His wit and Amoral attitudes are refreshing
Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events.
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
Robert A. Heinlein
-
I liked this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE&feature=player_embedded
-
Nice video.
-
Really interesting video about the inefficiency/corruption of a government system:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=064YTtSxVSo
Looks like Mises Institute has a lot of those.
-
oh well here is my article on a perfect society:
http://www.diy-av.net/?p=36